On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis <mavrot...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I do not think I claimed a sophisticated test.
Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt here. But it's really not testing what you thought it was testing, as others have pointed out. >> 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. True, it seems to want bitkeeper. I remember I read the makefile, and it uses some "bk tellmeversion > .version" thing to get the a revision or version string. Just put a random string in the generated file, and if you want remove that part of the makefile. > The XOs use 100% CPU, if you do anything with them other than looking at the > screen. The CPU is only one part of a complex system. Cranking out audio consumes power, reading from the camera consumes lots of pwoer, writing to eMMC or SD consumes power. > I would think that a test that uses 100% cpu is as close to "normal" as it > gets when we are talking XO use. Hmmmm. Sorry, I disagree here. You have usage cases, and they are very different from each other. There isn't much "normal". - writing a document - making a drawing - using TurtleArt - using one of the TamTams - recording or playing back video - reading content on websites - watching a video online - reading an ebook Some of those are moderate power consumers, some are big power hogs, some are pretty efficient. A special case needs to be consider for reading a page on a website, which can be extremely efficient or a power hog, depending on animations on the page. 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
