[Sugar-devel] Web activity example that uses html5 canvas

[James Cameron]

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 <quozl at 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/