Re: [foxboro] CP60 and FBM legacy
- From: "Dehler, Glenn SCAN--" <Glenn.Dehler@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:56:49 -0600
Greetings,
I am going from memory here so please, correct me if my recall is wrong =
(the mind is the second thing to go).
The key factor here was going from a CP40A to a CP60. The evolution of =
the CP was from a CP40A to a CP40B (and then to the CP60) with one of =
the main improvements being the inclusion of memory parity check and =
correct (besides changing the processor from an Intel 486 to an AMD =
486/133 - due to EOL for the 80486). This was implemented in software =
and hence, added a slight load in the CP40B processing. The CP60 had =
the same "memory parity detect and correct" solution in software as the =
CP40B (and the same AMD processor).
Hence, taking a CP40A database and migrating it into a CP40B or a CP60 =
would have resulted in a slightly higher load than the original CP40A. =
The memory parity detect and correct is (always) a good thing ... but =
has a cost due to software implementation.
The above is on top of the point that Alex (already) identified.
I am not sure how the memory parity detect and correct algorithm is =
implemented in the CP270. Anyone know - curious on the performance =
difference between the CP60 and CP270 taking the same control =
configuration. =20
Regards,
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Corey R Clingo
Sent: October 21, 2005 8:04 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] CP60 and FBM legacy
Since she hasn't chimed in yet, I'll say that one of my esteemed=20
colleagues here upgraded a CP40A to a CP60 and saw a 20% or more drop in =
idle time. I'm not sure what happened with the IO scan time.
We've heard anecdotal evidence, both from within and without Foxboro, =
that=20
CP40As in particular handle heavy IO, and maybe even block, loading =
better=20
then CP60s do (at least where 100-series FBMs are concerned). If true,=20
this is going to make it tough for folks who want to avoid end-of-life=20
issues for CP40As, but aren't ready for version 8 and CP270s.
Corey Clingo
BASF Corp.
"Jaime Claramunt R. (Inforsa)" <jclaramunt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/21/2005 09:37 AM
Please respond to foxboro
To: foxboro=20
cc:=20
Subject: Re: [foxboro] CP60 and FBM legacy
yeah... when I said 0.5s I meant the main cycle of CP... not 0.1s as is
allowed now with CP60. (sorry)
sure, we have most of blocks at 1s, so 2 phases to run them...
by now we are trying to reduce overruns by doing some "phasing" but just =
to
assure system 'till we found permanent solution.
about how many fbm for this CP... around 50 , in 3 distributed cabinets.
I/O load increased very much... twice I'ld say...
This approach (more DCM) is what local rep is aiming for now...
-----Mensaje original-----
De: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]En
nombre de joseph wu
Enviado el: Viernes, 21 de Octubre de 2005 10:08
Para: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: Re: [foxboro] CP60 and FBM legacy
Running at 0.5 sec only allow one phase (0). CP60 can hold a lot more
blocks than the older version. It does not mean you can run all the=20
blocks
in the CP in the same phase. There is a running limit (Don't recall=20
exactly
but is about the same as older version CP). Try running other blocks in =
a
slower scan rate. You must have a very special application to run all
blocks in 0.5 sec.
Picure it as trying to pick up as many fish in a barrel witrh your bare
hands. Even though the barrel get bigger, it does not mean you can pick =
up
more fish with the same two hands.
Good luck!
"Jaime Claramunt R. (Inforsa)" <jclaramunt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey List...
We recently upgraded one of our 10 CP40A-FT to CP60FT. (well, with all =
net
changes required... V7.x, FO switches, etc)
We found a prob here...
CP60 new loads are very high... control loads... running at 0.5s , it's
reaching 112% and 44% (phase 0,1). Worse than our old CP40...
We used one pair of DCM to interfase new CP60 and existent legacy =
fieldbus
(3 remote racks, pair of PIO each)
We are working with our local reps. but not too much clues yet...
Does anybody has some hints ??
Thx. Regards,
Jaime Claramunt
INFORSA Paper Mill
CHILE
=20
=20
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
=20
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: =
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
to unsubscribe: =
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
=20
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
