Re: [Sugar-devel] XO-1 vs Sugar 0.104 performance, and swap to NAND Flash
>> On 07/04/15 22:47, James Cameron wrote: >> > The testing scripts can be made available if anybody else would >> > like to replicate the results. >> >> I'd be curious to look at your scripts and try to replicate some >> results with our builds. > > git clone git://dev.laptop.org/users/quozl/test-startup-time.git > > Look at the file HOWTO. > > Somewhat unfinished work. Do ask any questions you may have. > >> Thanks a lot for your detailed tests! > > No worries. Interesting details! I'd be interested to see if porting Browse to the newer webkit 2 and what effect the perf improvements there would offer ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO-1 vs Sugar 0.104 performance, and swap to NAND Flash
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:32:00PM -0500, Sebastian Silva wrote: > > On 07/04/15 22:47, James Cameron wrote: > > The testing scripts can be made available if anybody else would > > like to replicate the results. > > I'd be curious to look at your scripts and try to replicate some > results with our builds. git clone git://dev.laptop.org/users/quozl/test-startup-time.git Look at the file HOWTO. Somewhat unfinished work. Do ask any questions you may have. > Thanks a lot for your detailed tests! No worries. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO-1 vs Sugar 0.104 performance, and swap to NAND Flash
On 07/04/15 22:47, James Cameron wrote: > The testing scripts can be made available if anybody else would like > to replicate the results. I'd be curious to look at your scripts and try to replicate some results with our builds. Thanks a lot for your detailed tests! Sebastian ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO-1 vs Sugar 0.104 performance, and swap to NAND Flash
> > Activity startup time is > much reduced, and reduced still further when the pulsing icon > animation is switched from 10 times a second to twice a second. The > animation is stealing resources! On the other hand, the spinning > cursor during startup or in Browse consumes no significant resources. > > http://dev.laptop.org/~quozl/z/1YdW4T.txt shows the change. > > Hmm, good catch, I will try with different numbers. Gonzalo > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Gonzalo Odiard SugarLabs - Software for children learning ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO-1 vs Sugar 0.104 performance, and swap to NAND Flash
SHC8420412 = 332S On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:54 AM, James Cameron wrote: > With Sugar 0.98 in 13.2.1, the XO-1 was so short of memory that adding > swap gave an obvious benefit. Thanks to those who have verified this > for us. > > With Sugar 0.104 in 13.2.4, things seem much better on the XO-1, > thanks to all the work done by Sugar Labs developers. But I'm not > finished testing [1]. > > Meanwhile, there's an opportunity to add swap to jffs2 filesystem. > > The XO-1 NAND Flash is rated for 100,000 writes per cell. The jffs2 > filesystem we use spreads the writes across all the cells. > > There's a risk that swapping to the NAND Flash will shorten the life > of an XO-1. It may become slower at reading and writing journal > entries. But they might already be so slow that this isn't a problem > any more. > > What I need is some data from XO-1 that have been used a lot: how long > does it take to reflash? To test, surround a copy-nand command with > timing markers, like this: > > ok t-sec( copy-nand u:\32014o0.img )t-sec > > The result will be on the line above the ok prompt when it is done, > e.g. 403S, which is 403 seconds. Send me the serial number, file > name, and time in seconds. > > Notes: > > 1. free memory with no activities running is up around the 40 MB > mark. Browse running leaves 16 MB free. Activity startup time is > much reduced, and reduced still further when the pulsing icon > animation is switched from 10 times a second to twice a second. The > animation is stealing resources! On the other hand, the spinning > cursor during startup or in Browse consumes no significant resources. > > http://dev.laptop.org/~quozl/z/1YdW4T.txt shows the change. > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Gonzalo Odiard SugarLabs - Software for children learning ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
