Re: [foxboro] Galaxy "ON MESH" or "OFF PLATFORM"
- From: "Gonzalez, Alejandro" <Alejandro.Gonzalez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:51:02 -0800
Similarly to Sheldon's system, our development system is an OFF MESH
system. But the reason of selecting this method is different. We
needed fifteen engineers working simultaneously in IEE doing
configuration and programming work. The ON MESH GR can only support
five people. We don't think there is much performance improvement
unless you open remote sessions to the GR. Unfortunately, when we
tried, we got other problems up to the point to abandon the idea of
remote desktop. Instead, we use 15 engineering workstations accessing
the GR database through IEE. Our GR is using the multi core enabled to
support the 15 engineers. We are currently at Infusion 2.0 non-secure.
Invensys told us to stay away from the secure version until 2.5. Our
network binding has the Archestra (2nd copper network) as primary bound.
As we speak, Invensys is setting up our real plant system in Fox Mass,
it is supposedly be running 2.5 secure. Due to redundancy requirements
in servers, the GR will use Marathon servers connected to the MESH, and
it still has to support 8 concurrent engineers working in IEE. Invensys
had found several problems in this environment, and more than 15 CARs
have been written. Most of the CARs have been targeted for version 3.0.
2.5 does require 8.6. Several QF have been developed and installed into
2.5. IOM has needed to do some more fixes of the QF installed. The
staged system will undergo a reliability test starting next year, as we
have had so many problems and we are not sure if they are related to the
network. Because IOM has given very few tools to evaluate the network,
we have asked them to use their Cyber Security team. The latter
typically helps you to make sure that your system is NERC compliant.
But in addition of that, I think they have better knowledge in
determining the real status of the network and its performance. Based
on their recommendation, we will have Enterasys NetSight and Solar Winds
Orion for monitoring the network and Windows Perfmon tool installed on
the machines for CPU, memory, and disk performance monitoring. These
tools should provide different baselines of the system at different
simulated process conditions (shutdown, startup, ramping up, normal,
abnormal conditions, trip conditions, and ramping down).
Regards,
Alejandro Gonzalez
Blue Grass Chemical Agent Pilot Plant
Parsons
100 W Walnut St
Pasadena, CA 91124
Phone: 626-440-3757; Fax: 626-440-3382
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of sssmith1@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 11:14 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Galaxy "ON MESH" or "OFF PLATFORM"
Our system was originally speced to be an OFF MESH Infusion system.
Done
at the time for perceived performance benefits of running multi core,
and
for the ability to have a secondary Gigabit backbone network for file
transfer, system imaging , trending and other high traffic functions.
Many
many issue during development with the Off mesh structure at the time.
The
multi homed nature of the network is not favorable to Wonderware or
Infusion. You have to construct and reference all Infusion machines by
IP address, not by name or Host file, there were reporting and error
logging issues, and the performance benefits seemed negligible. They
were
on a steep learning curve, and had no one engaged at the time, who knew
how and what needed to be done to make it function properly. Through
experimenting and missteps, it was discovered that much of the Infusion
Direct access configuration and reporting structures were GREATLY slowed
and in some cases faulted in a OFF mesh multi core environment. Our
system remains Off mesh, but have disabled the multi core on the galaxy.
The network binding have to be adjusted in the OFF mesh environment to
make the Off mesh network be the primary bound.
Other considerations at this time. Foxboro does not have an off the
shelve solution for supporting an IA Secure system 8.5 and above in a
domain environment. Microsoft constraints on multi homed domain
controllers I believe. Earlier they had stated though that their IT
network engineering would develop a custom solution for an OFF Mesh
galaxy
system through con$ulting $ervices, if someone was fool hardy enough to
peruse.
I would recommend staying ON MESH.
Sheldon Smith
AEP
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
