On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:22:18PM +0000, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:12:33PM +0200, Timo Sch?ler wrote:
> 
> > what about the output speed? that *is* for me the main reason to try 
> > RASTERCONSOLE, as it claims to speed up this very lame thing (as statet 
> > in the kernel config file)...
> 
> Before mouse added the cgsix accelleration RASTERCONSOLE was slower
> than the OBP.  It's probably still slower on anything other than
> cgsix.
> 

I just measured ffb, I never did it before, it was mostly perseption that
rasterconsole is significanly faster then OBP.
The test was 'cat 100k_file'. Results are that OBP is slower but not
much:

OBP: 		0.0u 49.0s 0:49.10 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
ffb+rastercons: 0.0u 36.1s 0:36.16 99.8% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

Big difference is in ping response time during the test
(ping from another machine).

OBP:
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=61 ttl=255 time=23.241 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=62 ttl=255 time=23.714 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=63 ttl=255 time=10.385 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=64 ttl=255 time=69.820 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=65 ttl=255 time=54.662 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=66 ttl=255 time=13.226 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=67 ttl=255 time=50.043 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=68 ttl=255 time=55.269 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=69 ttl=255 time=22.934 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=70 ttl=255 time=14.632 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=71 ttl=255 time=26.954 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=72 ttl=255 time=50.222 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=73 ttl=255 time=58.633 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=74 ttl=255 time=25.187 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=75 ttl=255 time=49.201 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=76 ttl=255 time=26.948 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=77 ttl=255 time=10.500 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=78 ttl=255 time=36.573 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=79 ttl=255 time=19.369 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=80 ttl=255 time=53.168 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=81 ttl=255 time=51.593 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=82 ttl=255 time=23.687 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=83 ttl=255 time=15.350 ms

ffb+rasterconsole+wscons:

64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=11 ttl=255 time=0.183 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=12 ttl=255 time=0.167 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=13 ttl=255 time=0.164 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=14 ttl=255 time=0.163 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=15 ttl=255 time=0.168 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=16 ttl=255 time=0.180 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=17 ttl=255 time=0.164 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=18 ttl=255 time=0.164 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=19 ttl=255 time=0.181 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=20 ttl=255 time=0.173 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=21 ttl=255 time=0.170 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=22 ttl=255 time=0.178 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=23 ttl=255 time=0.183 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=24 ttl=255 time=0.167 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=25 ttl=255 time=0.182 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=26 ttl=255 time=0.180 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=27 ttl=255 time=0.170 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.7.73: icmp_seq=28 ttl=255 time=0.179 ms

	Andrey