Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.

  • From: Neil Martin <neil_martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:20:45 -0500




Alex,

We used NCNIs and the V7.X switches to replace the FONBEs in our 4 existing
Nodebus segments.  Besides allowing us to install V7.X stations, this
resulted in greatly reducing the traffic on our originally very heavily
loaded single Nodebus system.  Using an existing Nodebus segment to
interface V8.X stations and any CP270s to the V6.X/V7.X DCS portion of our
system is going to raise the Nodebus traffic impact on the Nodebus segment
the ATS modules are installed in and could likely overload it - it is a big
step backwards for us. If 5 Nodebus segments are allowed, I understand that
I can buy another 1x8 and NCNIs, try to find enclosure space, run fiber to
connect the NCNIs to the V7.X switches, and then install the ATSs to
interface all the new V8.X stations and CPs to our system.  However, it
sure is a shame to have to revert to such means to do so - there will be
more potential failure points, we are having to utilize older technology,
it seems the 10 MegBAUD Nodebus in the 1x8 is going to slow down
communications to remaining parts of our system (especially the V7.X
stations), it will cost more, etc.  It is a very big disappointment.


Neil Martin,    P.E.
Huntsman Polymers Corporation
2505 South Grandview
Odessa, TX.  79766
ph) 432-640-8436
pager)432-742-4289
email page)4327424289@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


                                                                                
                                                    
                      "Johnson, Alex P                                          
                                                    
                      (IPS)"                      To:       
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx                                                   
                      <alex.johnson@xxxxxx        cc:                           
                                                    
                      vensys.com>                 Subject:  Re: [foxboro] FW: 
More future direction questions.                      
                      Sent by:                                                  
                                                    
                      foxboro-bounce@freel                                      
                                                    
                      ists.org                                                  
                                                    
                                                                                
                                                    
                                                                                
                                                    
                      10/12/2005 02:01 PM                                       
                                                    
                      Please respond to                                         
                                                    
                      foxboro                                                   
                                                    
                                                                                
                                                    




Re: The ideal solution for many of us that already have a 7.X/6.X mixed
system is an ATS equivalent that can plug directly into the Foxboro V7.X
fiber Ethernet switches that we have.

There are no plans to build an ATS that plugs directly into the V7.x
Ethernet switches.

Is plugging it into a Nodebus a significant issue?
Can you describe me the problems this causes 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


-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Neil Martin
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:41 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.





Alex,

The ideal solution for many of us that already have a 7.X/6.X mixed system,
is an ATS equivalent that can plug directly into the Foxboro V7.X fiber
ethernet switches that we have.  Is there any of hope of Foxboro developing
this any time soon?

Neil Martin,    P.E.
Huntsman Polymers Corporation
2505 South Grandview
Odessa, TX.  79766
ph) 432-640-8436
pager)432-742-4289
email page)4327424289@xxxxxxxxxxxxx




                      "Johnson, Alex P

                      (IPS)"                      To:
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                      <alex.johnson@xxxxxx        cc:

                      vensys.com>                 Subject:  Re: [foxboro]
FW: More future direction questions.
                      Sent by:

                      foxboro-bounce@freel

                      ists.org





                      10/12/2005 01:28 PM

                      Please respond to

                      foxboro







Re: I am interested to know if your example below is correct

Yes. It is a legal configuration. The ATSs and NCNIs would be in one 1x8.
The ATS and NCNI communicate over the 1x8's Nodebus cables.

The NCNIs make the physical connection to the V7.x switches.

The ATSs link the Nodebus equipment to the Mesh network. An ATS is required
because the Mesh network does not have a 'A' and 'B' network and,
therefore,
requires different communications handling.

There is a common misconception that an NCNI and an ATS are basically the
same thing - this is incorrect. They are quite different.


Does this help?


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


-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:13 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.

Alex,
             I am interested to know if your example below is correct or if
you just forgot to remove the ATS on the NCNI segment that is above the
segment where the other ATS is connected to the MESH.  If the ATS in
question is needed could you explain what function it serves?  Thanks
for any clarification you can offer.

"Depending on your traffic levels this next configuration is actually
better,
but requires more 1x8s"

                V7.x AW
                   |
                  RCNI
 V6.x A            |                       =20
 __|____ NCNI ___ |S|____NCNI____________ATS
 |   |            |W|       |       |      =20
CP  CP            |I|      CP      CP      =20
                  |T|                            _____
                  |C|____NCNI____________ATS____|Mesh |-- AW/WP
                  |H|                           |Ntwk |-- CP
                                                |     |-- CP
                                                 -----
Cheers,
Tom VandeWater



-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Johnson, Alex P (IPS)
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:40 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.

The correct way to link V7.x and V6.x equipment - if there are fewer
than 64
letterbugs in the combination - is something like this:

                V7.x AW
                   |
                  RCNI
 V6.x A            |
 __|____ NCNI ___ SW____NCNI____________
 |   |                       |       |
CP  CP                      CP      CP


I didn't try to show the redundancy, but there are actually 2 pairs of
NCNIs, 2 switches, and 1 RCNI that connects to both switches.


Building on this, to add V8 equipment one would:


                V7.x AW
                   |
                  RCNI
 V6.x A            |                             ______
 __|____ NCNI ___ SW____NCNI____________ATS_____| Mesh |-- AW/WP
 |   |                       |       |          | Ntwk |-- CP
CP  CP                      CP      CP          |      |-- CP
                                                 ------
Again, I didn't try to show redundancy, but you would have 2 ATS modules
and
multiple switches. The CP and AW/WPs connect with separate Ethernet
NICs.


Depending on your traffic levels this next configuration is actually
better,
but requires more 1x8s

                V7.x AW
                   |
                  RCNI
 V6.x A            |                       =20
 __|____ NCNI ___ |S|____NCNI____________ATS
 |   |            |W|       |       |      =20
CP  CP            |I|      CP      CP      =20
                  |T|                            _____
                  |C|____NCNI____________ATS____|Mesh |-- AW/WP
                  |H|                           |Ntwk |-- CP
                                                |     |-- CP
                                                 -----


If you have a bigger system with CBLANs installed, the configuration
gets
more complicated, but that's for another day.

   =20
                                           =20



Regards,
=20
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
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of stan
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:03 AM
To: Foxboro List
Subject: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.

I'm reposting this, as it went out just before huricane Rtia, and I
suspect
that a lot of people were a little busy to answer it :-)


I've got 2 more questions related to future directions.

1. Given an existing "classic" nodebus node, and a V7 UNIX node with 2
boot
hosts, is the ATS still the appropriate solution to share data (and
potentially control) between these  2 & 1/2 :-) nodes?

Given a system with 2 boot hosts, each of which has it's own "sub node",
that is each cabinet (2 total) has redundant fiber nodebus switches, and
CP's but that is all committed as one "node". Should we connect the 2
sets
of
switches with the gigabit uplinks, or should we just make 100M fiber
connections between the 2 sets of switches?

ASCII ART system architecture follows:


          +--------------+                      +-----------------+
       +--|   A Switch   +......................|   A Switch      |--+
       |  +---------------                      +-----------------+  |
       |                                                             |
       |  +--------------+                      +-----------------+  |
       |  |   B Switch   |......................|   B Switch      |  |
       |  +--------------+                      +-----------------+  |
       |             |                             |                 |
       |  +---------------+                      -----------------+  |
       +--| 1x8 with CP's |                     | 1x8 with CP's   |--+
          +---------------+                      -----------------+


I've omitted the CP's connections to FBM's for clarity, and of course
the
Ix8's have NCNI's, and there are WP's and AW's connected to the
switches.
The
dotted lines are the connections I'm asking about.


Thanks for any input on this.


--=20
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite
Vietcong Terror=20
- New York Times 9/3/1967
=20
=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

=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




_______________________________________________________________________
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




_______________________________________________________________________
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: