On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:03:17PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> > > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <mavrot...@yahoo.com> > > Cc: OLPC Devel <devel@lists.laptop.org> > > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:44 AM > > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75) > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:02:15PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >> > From: James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> > >> > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <mavrot...@yahoo.com> > >> > Cc: OLPC Devel <devel@lists.laptop.org> > >> > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:10 AM > >> > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75) > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote: > >> >> I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a > > sense of > >> >> XO-1 performance wise. So I compared my (500/200 overclocked) > > XO-1 > >> >> running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running > >> >> F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98. > >> > > >> > Since some general performance work was done between those software > >> > versions, the comparison is uninteresting. Compare 13.2.0-11 across > >> > XO-1 and XO-1.75, or compare XO-1 across os885 and 13.2.0-11, > >> > depending on what you are looking to prove. > >> > >> This comparison has been done a couple of months ago and is clear > >> that F18/S0.98 taxes the systems considerably. > > > > Yes, it does seem that way. I tried 13.2.0-n on XO-1 recently and > > felt it was quite slow, but I couldn't be sure it wasn't because my > > XO-1.75 and XO-4 experience influenced me. > > > >> What I found interesting in this "unmatched" comparison was the > >> inconsistency. > > > > I don't see any inconsistency though, because the comparison was > > unmatched to begin with. Variables you changed included overclocking, > > the CPU, the memory, the internal storage, the touchpad, the kernel, > > the base operating system, the frame buffer, the X server, the OLPC > > utilities, and Sugar. All I can draw from the results is that you > > changed a lot of things and a lot of things were different. > > But this is exactly the point! > When a _lot_ of things are changing and you have two groups of > activities one going one way and the other the opposite, you look > for the "least common denominator" that will hopefully point to the > problem (this is is a very common approach in multi-variable > problems).
Oh good, now I understand. > > > > >> They might point to specific stacks in the > >> architecture and/or core OS that may need attention (I originally > >> thought was that activities with an extended non-python component or > >> proportionally less gtk3, fair better on the XO-1.75 - but what do I > >> know ;). > >> Anyway, if the knowledgeable believe there is nothing to it or > >> anything to be done about it,' there goes the comparison. > > > > We wait for someone who seems interested in fixing performance > > problems on the old hardware. It requires quite a depth of knowledge > > and a lot of time. It isn't something that we can justify a huge > > investment in. > > > > I would think that the performance of newer hardware may be the one > that needs attention but certainly can not prioritize it (unless if > XO-1.75 classifies under "older" by now). XO-1.75 and XO-4 are current, but XO-1.5 and XO-1 are old. We are certainly interested in any ways to make clear performance improvements on XO-1.75 and XO-4. We are also interested in the same for XO-1.5 and XO-1, but my guess is that the number of people who will immediately benefit may be much lower. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel