Re: [foxboro] Foxboro list Help
- From: "David Vergara S. (SANTAFE - CMPC Celulosa)" <dvergaras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Kevin Fitzgerrell <fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:47:29 -0400
buuuu!!!!
I can=B4t see all the list messages!.
Our I&T people is checking that everything is OK.
do you know the 'of-list' administrator=B4s email, because I have sent =
notes
to him by the foxboro-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mail and I never have =
response.
maybe his e-mails was blocked too.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Kevin Fitzgerrell [mailto:fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxx]
Enviado el: Jueves, 13 de Septiembre de 2007 21:43
Para: David Vergara S. (SANTAFE - CMPC Celulosa)
Asunto: Re: Foxboro list Help
David,
No problem, happy to help. Yes, I could see my previous mail to you
in the list, about 5 minutes after I sent it to you.
Regards,
Kevin
On 9/14/07, David Vergara S. (SANTAFE - CMPC Celulosa)
<dvergaras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> sorry for boring you...
> but I'm suspecting that I have problems with my firewall or something =
like
> that....
> can you see your previous mail in the list?
>
> P.S. thank you for the information anyway.
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Kevin Fitzgerrell [mailto:fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxx]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 13 de Septiembre de 2007 19:23
> Para: David Vergara S. (SANTAFE - CMPC Celulosa)
> CC: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: Re: Foxboro list Help
>
>
> David,
>
> That is strange. My emails normally take about 10 minutes to feed
> back, although sometimes they are longer. When I send from my =
company
> email, sometimes my feedback doesn't show up at all, although it does
> go to the other users. I'll copy my reply back to the list.
>
> Foxboro's locally stored graphics are similar to Honeywell's high
> availability consoles which also store graphics locally (I believe).
> The advantage is that the failure of a graphics server (or redundant
> servers) can't affect the operator's ability to call up graphics. =
One
> obvious disadvantage is the effort to keep graphics synchronized
> between the workstations.
>
> Your strategy for display distribution is a fairly common one, and =
can
> work well.
>
> The other common strategy is to distribute ALL displays to ALL AWs =
and
> WPs and limit access to the appropriate displays in the operators
> environments. The advantage to this strategy is that an engineer can
> check the status of any piece of equipment from any plant area by
> logging on to the engineering environment.
>
> I haven't used the "blow" script, but normally do scripted copies of
> graphics to workstations. You may also look at using a "compare"
> script to check the date, size and/or checksum of the graphics on =
each
> workstation to see if any are different. Use caution comparing two
> graphics with checksum - I believe the checksum changes between a
> newly created graphic and after it has been called the first or =
second
> time.
>
> I'm glad you liked my website. Unfortunately it's badly in need of
> being brought more current. Many of the scripts are not appropriate
> to current versions of I/A, and I've significantly changed my =
approach
> to systems administration to use off-platform "robot" scripts that
> telnet to the AWs and WPs to do reporting, checks and automatic
> maintenance. That's how I handle "synchronization tasks" also. I do
> schedule these, but the scheduling is managed off-platform, on a
> non-ia windows server.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin FitzGerrell
>
> On 9/13/07, David Vergara S. (SANTAFE - CMPC Celulosa)
> <dvergaras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But what strange!!! because I send this one on September 03 and it =
never
> > appeared.
> > in the previous one (the one which works...) it takes about 30 =
minutes
to
> > feed back. How much take this to you?
> >
> >
> > P.S.
> >
> >
> > I have visited your web site. It's GREAT. Thank you!!!
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: David Vergara S. (SANTAFE - CMPC Celulosa)
> > Enviado el: Lunes, 03 de Septiembre de 2007 10:45
> > Para: 'foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> > Asunto: Good practices in displays managing.
> >
> >
> > Dear List:
> > I found this issue very interesting in the "Barriers to =
migration
> to
> > Windows" thread.
> > In your experience: Do you have some advise about displays =
residence /
> > edition / distribution?
> >
> > We come from a Honeywell TDC 3000 DCS with a single network =
HDD,
> > from where the same display is read from all the stations.
> >
> > The "station stored display" oriented strategy is new for Us.
> >
> > We are using this premises:
> > 1.- The WPs are divided by AREA (~10) with 3 WPs each one.
> > 2.- There is ONE "official displays building AW" for each area =
but...
> > 3.- all AWs has ALL the displays stored in separated folders for =
each
> area.
> >
> >
> > We are using MS explorer to distribute our displays over the =
network.
> >
> > *.- one problem is that we can't define "distribution groups" (... =
I
don't
> > know how...), so we must type in the stations names one by one each =
time
> we
> > want to distribute a schematic...
> >
> > *.- We are afraid about ambiguity in displays version (because
> > distribution).
> >
> > *.-I have read that someone is using "blow" to distribute displays =
but I
> > can't found any reference to it in our system.
> > P92 - WinXp - I/A 8.2
> >
> > *.-What do you think about using Synchronization tools with =
scheduled
> tasks?
> > regards,
> >
> > David A. Vergara S.
> > CMPC Celulosa Planta Santa Fe
> >
>
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
