Re: [foxboro] Nodebus..Displays..Smurfing..William..Shatner..Acting

David,
        I'm not going to be of any help here but I am interested in
gaining a few more details and would like to hear how you resolve this
problem.
        I'm assuming that you "moved" the files between the AW51F and
the 70 series boxes across the nodebus using FTP which uses TCP/IP as
the transport protocol.  My questions are these:
Even though displays "Smurf" do the file transfers succeed?
If not, can you successfully ping from AW51F to AW70XP?
Is the AW51F on the same nodebus as the ATS?
If the AW51F isn't on the same node as the ATS, TCP/IP communication
will not work!

Cheers,
Tom VandeWater

-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Johnson
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 2:38 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] Nodebus..Displays..Smurfing..William..Shatner..Acting

Hey everybody.

It has long been known that moving large amounts of data, such as=20
many displays, over the nodebus will cause smurfing....

That being said, I have been working on a configuration like the=20
following for several years.
(use fixed font for align for viewing the bad ASCII drawings.)
AW51F------WP7001
                 |-WP7002
                 ...
                 | WP7007

The 70 series workstations do not have a secondary ethernet port.

Displays were converted to .g files and moved to or from the F box as=20
needed.  Then the .fdf displays were copied by windows explorer from=20
a "master" NT box to the rest of the NT workstations.  This worked=20
reasonably well as long as no one attempted to copy too much data at=20
a time.  How much was too much?  I don't know, I know at least a=20
directory at a time was doable, and possibly more.

Now they added an AW70X running XP and an ATS with a CP270 so it=20
looks more like

AW70Xp -----ATS-----AW51F
                        |-WP7001
                                   ...
                                   |-WP7007

Now copying even one file of ~ .5 meg causes smurfing, and the=20
problem seems to persist until the boxes involved in the copying are=20
re-booted.  I don't know if the ATS is jamming a lot of data onto the=20
nodebus and amplifying the problem, or if we have something else that=20
needs adjusting.  Has anyone else seen this kind of behavior?

Let me know your experiences in this area.

Thanks,
David

=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:             http://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:             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: