Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions.
- From: Kevin FitzGerrell <fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:22:19 +1300 (NZDT)
Corey,
In your small system example, I can't see any reason not to do as you've
described, subject to the Foxboro license/software costs of upgrading your V7.x
boxes to V8.x boxes.
I intend to work towards a system with ATS modules in all the legacy segments
connecting directly to V8.x switches, but I'm looking at the scenarios discussed
in the last couple days as a simpler first step.
I've got 3 seperate networks with a total of 5 pairs of switches and about 17
segments with NCNIs. My current plan is to put in a V8 host with three sets of
gateway ATS modules to connect the three individual networks together. Then (as
shut schedules permit) upgrade F and XP boxes to V8 (network cards, software,
license), replace NCNIs with ATSs and bring the switches to V8. In conjunction
with this we'll look at eliminating some segments by upgrading CPs and gateways
to CP270s with FDSI FBMs.
Some cost related concerns include:
V7 -> V8 costs for an AW or WP, I understand this will require network card(s)
upgrade, but I don't know how much the software/license cost will be. Given
that the license costs much more than the hardware now, I expect I may be
shocked at the price to bring my V7.x Solaris workstations to V8.x
NCNI -> ATS -- I've been told there will be an advantage upgrade for CLAN and/or
NCNI modules, but I don't know how much I will end up paying for an ATS module
under this program.
Regards,
Kevin FitzGerrell
Carter Holt Harvey, Ltd.
+64 27 460 9994
Quoting Corey R Clingo <clingoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Put this guy on the Cassandra wiki [I am an I/A god because I made Alex
> J.
> say, "Truth is - I don't know. (Man, that hurts.)"] :-D
>
> Seriously, I thought I understood this, but the recent discussion has
> left
> me wondering. Say I have a system with two segments. Each segment has
> some CPs, and some WPs and (on one segment) an AW (D/E vintage) that
> connect into 1x8s with DNBTs. Each segment also has a pair of NCNIs that
>
> connect it to a V7 switch (a redundant pair, actually). The V7 switch
> also
> has an AW51G and a few WP51Fs, and an AW70/XP (I don't know what
> P-number
> that is), all running at version 7, connected with RCNIs. The CPs' host
>
> is the AW51G connected to the switch. These switches are some of the
> ones
> certified to work with V8.
>
>
> Now let's say I want to go to version 8, when a V8 comes out that
> supports
> both Solaris and XP on the mesh side. Is it not "cleaner", and maybe
> better from a traffic standpoint, to just replace the NCNIs with ATSs,
> upgrade the V7 boxes' software to V8 (and ditch the RCNIs and install
> redundant NICs), cross-connect the switches, and go on down the road, as
>
> opposed to buying new mesh switches and a new V8 host and hanging them
> off
> one of the existing segments?
>
>
> Corey Clingo
> BASF Corp.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 10/13/2005 02:13 PM
> Please respond to foxboro
>
> To: foxboro
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: If we already have 4 Nodebus segments connected with NCNIs to the
> V7.X
> switches, is adding a separate 1x8 loaded with NCNI's and ATSs to create
> a
> 5th Nodebus segment for interface to a new V8.X AW station and any
> CP270s
> that we add (or upgrade to) going to be a Foxboro supported option?
> Stated
> another way, when NCNIs and V7.X switches are used to interconnect the
> segments, are 5 Nodebus segments allowed?
>
>
> That's a really good question. One of the best I've had in weeks.
>
> For those that do not know, V7.0 systems allow five (5) control segments
>
> in
> a Node. A control segment is one that has control stations in it. A
> segment
> with only WPs/AWs does not count as a control segment. WPs/AWs attached
>
> with
> RCNIs do not count either.
>
> Version 7.1 bumped the limit to eight (8) control segments in Node.
>
> The limitation is imposed by our network fault detection software.
>
>
> What Neil is asking is, "How does a large Mesh network impact this
> limitation?"
>
> Truth is - I don't know. (Man, that hurts.)
>
>
> I'll have to ask and get back to you.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex Johnson
> Invensys Systems, Inc.
> 10707 Haddington
> Houston, TX 77063
> +1 713 722 2859 (voice)
> +1 713 932 0222 (fax)
> +1 713 722 2700 (switchboard)
> alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
