--- On Mon, 5/28/12, Martin Langhoff <martin.langh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langh...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: XO battery/performance > To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis" <mavrot...@yahoo.com> > Cc: "OLPC Devel" <devel@lists.laptop.org> > Date: Monday, May 28, 2012, 2:18 PM > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:59 AM, > Yioryos Asprobounitis > <mavrot...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > The test was done is Sugar and during the entire test > the backlight was on and the "rolling" count output was > displayed in the terminal activity. The XOs were associated > with the same AP but no network or other activity was > running. > > That's a crazy test. I do not think I claimed a sophisticated test. Just used what I needed at the time. The fact that is shows that the XO-1.75 is slower but more efficient than the XO-1.5 does not make it "crazy" nor wrong, if you are able to evaluate it for what it does. Certainly not worthy of aphorisms > > If you want an idea of low-level performance, I can suggest > running LMBench. Thanks for the advice. If you can point to an lmbench rpm or how to compile it without bitkeeper, by now a commercial software, would be even better. > > For battery performance, you want normal use under battery. The XOs use 100% CPU, if you do anything with them other than looking at the screen. I would think that a test that uses 100% cpu is as close to "normal" as it gets when we are talking XO use. > If you > want an aggressive, unrealistic, artificial "burn as much > battery as > fast as possible", try running "runin" scripts. > > cheers, > > > > m > -- > martin.langh...@gmail.com > mar...@laptop.org > -- Software Architect - OLPC > - ask interesting questions > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code > first > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel