Test run of 2009/05/25 image
mikus at bga.com
Thu Jun 4 13:21:35 UTC 2009
These days I do almost all my running with the most recent F11-based
builds available (e.g., 2009/05/25 image and newer). It is only the
lack of audio or video in F11-on-XO that keeps me from abandoning my
8.2.1 systems. Most of the items mentioned don't bother me:
[Note: My XOs all have a "permanent" SD card, which holds lots of
executables (including activities) + gigs of data + swap partition.]
> Forewarning: non scientific tests...
> * "occasional" creating devices hang
> For me, it was "occasional" boot. Once it took 16 boots, the last
> 3 of which separated by two hours from the other 13.
My *average* number of repeats before boot is successful: 5 or so
> * wasted memory
> GNOME just SHOULDN'T be there. A simpler window manager will
> make it much better. I installed OpenBox but it was very hard
> because of OOM killer :)
Looking only at what XO-1s I have powered up at this instant:
nand occupancy for 2009/05/28+: 516 MB
nand occupancy for build 801: 504 MB
[Both values are affected by how many Activities installed in nand.]
256 MB of RAM is not much. That's why I have an active swap
partition. I'm not sure how much a smaller "resident system"
I do experience [particularly when using 'find /'] unwanted system
stalls (OOM killer?) after the system has been running for a while.
My guess would be that there are memory leaks - which would be a
problem even if initially available amount of memory were greater.
Here's hoping that eventually enough people will be using F11-on-XO
to justify investigating such problems.
> * OpenBox launches way too many GNOME daemons.
> I had to kill a lot of them by hand in order to get some more
> free memory.
I normally run applications with Sugar instead of Gnome as the
manager. Haven't tried to overcommit with F11-on-XO builds, but in
my experience with F9-based builds, two "monster" applications
active simultaneously (e.g., Firefox + Adobe Reader) are as much as
the XO-1 can handle.
> * not enough memory for yum
> 99% of the attempts to install anything resulted in OOM kills
Helps to periodically do 'yum clean all'. Yum normally runs fine.
[Did cause a system stall once when trying to update glibc - but
that was on a 'yum upgrade' that was pulling in some 40 packages.]
> * speed of GNOME interface was acceptable
> really, this was the biggest surprise I had...
> fedora-olpc, to be a sucess, needs a much slimmer UI than that
> of GNOME.
"Success" needs to be defined. Seems to me the OLPC was envisioned
mainly for a single-application environment. Except for being slow
at processing, I think it succeeds admirably.
[GNOME-on-XO has the advantage of clarity and not-very-complicated.
Yes, other UIs can be fashioned, but work would have to be put in to
make them "do enough to make it easy for users". <See how much
effort it has taken to fashion Sugar.>]
More information about the olpc