On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 10:55:51AM +1000, James Cameron wrote: > Summary: this Clock activity consumes significantly less CPU on XO-4 > and XO-1 when implemented in Javascript.
Myth busted. See new results in context below. > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 08:42:18PM -0300, Manuel Qui?ones wrote: > > 2013/4/30 James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org>: > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 08:58:50AM -0300, Manuel Qui?ones wrote: > > >> Should work on other browsers now: > > >> > > >> http://manuq.github.io/clockjs/ > > > > > > Agreed, works well, reasonably low CPU utilisation. Thanks. > > > > Excellent. Thanks for checking the CPU consumption. > > Here's a more detailed check. Method is to run only the activity > under test, and use the serial port to run the Linux top command > configured for a 30 second sample time. > > -- > > On XO-4 using 13.1.0: > > - using Javascript, the Browse-149 process consumes 7.5% CPU, and the > X process 3.2% CPU. Total of 10.7% CPU. > > - not using Javascript, the Clock-12 process consumes 2.7% CPU, and > the X process 13.2% CPU. Total of 15.9% CPU. Clock-12.5 process consumes 0.6%, and the X process 2.0%, a total of 2.6%. > -- > > On XO-1 using 13.2.0, build 32004o0, > > - using Javascript, the Browse-149.2 process consumes 9.8%, the X > process 7.4%, a total of 17.2%, > > - not using Javascript, the Clock-12 process consumes 10.4% and X > process consumes 18.4%, a total of 30.8%. Clock-12.5 process consumes 1.5%, and the X process 3.6%, a total of 5.1%. > > -- > > On XO-1 using 11.3.0, build 883, > > - using Javascript, the Browse 129.1 does not render the script, > > - not using Javascript, the Clock-6 consumes 7.0%, and X consumed > 9.0%, a total of 16%. Test not repeated. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel