Re: [foxboro] Modbus gateway question

I'll give it a try.

First, 7.0 and 7.1 would be better named something with a 6 'cause they
aren't really different. My opinion; others have different opinions
obviously.

So

V6.5 is really the same as V7.0 except that V7 adds Sol8 WS and the
switches. V6.5 supported 51b/c boxes

V6.5.1 is really the same as V7.1 except that V7 adds Sol8 WS and the
switches. V6.5.1 had a problem with 51b/c boxes and was released for 51d/e
only.


According to my memory, support for the Modbus FBM was a late V6.5
deliverable, but

(there's always a but)

it may be that V6.5.1 is required not just V6.5, i.e., maybe there isn't a
QF to add Modbus support to V6.5.


In that case, 51b/c boxes can't be used to host an FBM224's CP.

That said, there is a maintenance release due in the not to distant future
that adds 51b/c support back. I'm not sure of the V6.5.2 release date nor
can I guarantee that 51b/c support is in it.


The gist of this?

1) If you have V6.5.1 or later, a CP60 hosted by a V6.5.1 or later AW, and
an FBM224 you can use it.

2) If you have 51b/c boxes, you need to either upgrade one of them to host
the CP60s of interest or wait for V6.5.2 (assuming that the support of the
51b/c is added back)

3) Contact your Service Rep or the CSC to see what the status of V6.5.2
and/or FBM 224 support for V6.5 is.

Does that make any sense?

Regards,
 
Alex Johnson
Invensys Process Systems
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77043
713.722.2859 (voice)
713.722.2700 (switchboard)
713.932.0222 (fax)
ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of duc.do@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:03 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Modbus gateway question

> a) You want to be at V6.5 (51b/c), V6.5.1 (51d/e) or 7.1 (f/g). 

Alex,

I can understand the v7.1 requirement for the F/G boxes (Solaris 8), but I'm
curious as to why you say v6.5 or 6.5.1 for the more ancient boxes. Can you
rehash the differences?

Most of our AWs are B-style Sun boxes, and all of them are at 6.2.1, and 25%
of our CPs are CP60s with a mixture of 200-series and legacy FBMs.

Duc

-- 
Duc M. Do
Dow Corning Corp.
Carrollton Plant
Carrollton, KY, US


-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Johnson, Alex
(Foxboro)
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:35 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Modbus gateway question


Can't speak to trauma, but:

a) You want to be at V6.5 (51b/c), V6.5.1 (51d/e) or 7.1 (f/g). 
b) Getting there requires a Day 0 and CP reboots to cross the V6.3/6.4
   barrier.
c) Displays don't change - either FV or DM
d) CP40a can still be booted, monitored, and configured using the tools you
   have today
e) You do not need to change historians.

Sounds like your biggest issue will be 51b support. 

Does this help?

Regards,
 
Alex Johnson
Invensys Process Systems
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77043
713.722.2859 (voice)
713.722.2700 (switchboard)
713.932.0222 (fax)
ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jaime Claramunt R. (Inforsa)
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:09 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Modbus gateway question

how big is the "trauma" to uograde versions, let's say from 4.3 to 7 (or one
to allow Cp60 and fbm200 for comm) ??
displays ? cp40a configs? historian ? etc
we have a medium size net with ver 4.3, cp40a and 51B boxes... and we are
looking for improve use of communications toward new 200 series (modbus,
profibus, whatever..no more int30...)

regards
Jaime Claramunt

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Ken.E.Moore@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Ken.E.Moore@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Enviado el: Miercoles, 17 de Noviembre de 2004 10:44
Para: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: Re: [foxboro] Modbus gateway question



This coming holiday we will be installing a new AW51F (host) to our system
running ver 7.0,
we will also be adding a CP60 and several of the 200 series FBM's. The rest
of our system will
remain at version 6.3 (3 "B" boxes).
Is the FBM224 a viable option for us?

thanks,

Ken Moore





"Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)" <ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>@freelists.org on
11/16/2004 06:14:31 PM

Please respond to foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent by:    foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To:    foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:     (bcc: Ken E Moore/US/NSC/ICI)
Subject:    Re: [foxboro] Modbus gateway question


Ken,

Re: "peer-to-peer" Modbus
I'm not aware of a 'peer-to-peer' version of Modbus. Can you tell me more
about what you are using and the configuration? This sounds odd to me.


Re: General use of Modbus Gateway (MDGW) and Modbus Device Integrator (MGI)
The MDGW and MDI are both Modbus RTU masters and control the link.

In general, one puts multiple slave devices on the link and let the one
port
serve them all.

There are extra ports (4 on the CmP15/DI15 HW and 2 on the CmP30/DI30 HW),
but they have an impact on each other. The overall performance of the
device
does not improve (in fact it declines) if they are used separately.

I'm pretty sure that this is covered in the manual, but it's been a while.
Do you need a copy?

I don't suppose you have a CP60 at V6.5.x? If so, you could use the FBM224.



Regards,

Alex Johnson
Invensys Process Systems
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77043
713.722.2859 (voice)
713.722.2700 (switchboard)
713.932.0222 (fax)
ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken.E.Moore@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] Modbus gateway question


I currently have a modbus gateway that is connected to a Texas Instruments
PLC, via peer to peer.
Is it possible to add an additional peer to peer connection on the second
port?
If I upgrade to an Integrator 30 , would two peer to peer connections be
possible?


thanks,

Ken Moore
NSCC-Wdrf PLant



 
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
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:             http://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:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: