Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:48:29 -0400
I thought this would be a good time to review my implementation guidelines:
There are a few rules that one should follow when designing a control system:
• Do it in regulatory control blocks. (most efficient; least prone to
problems)
• If the regulatory control blocks can’t do it, use a CALC block.
(efficient, but must deal with BAD and coding errors; debugging is a pain) •
If the CALC block can’t do it, use a Sequence Block (pretty inefficient,
but in the CP. Code/compilation relatively complex. Debugging is a pain.) •
If you can’t do it in a sequence block, reconsider if you need to do it.
• If you must do it, see if you can do it in a shell (sh, ksh, csh, perl,
etc.) script (easier to debug, easy to schedule, remember to use omgetimp
and omsetimp to avoid broadcasts, remember to use show_params to check the
IMPORT table)
• If you can’t do it in a script, reconsider doing it.
• If you must do it, see if there is a 3rd party or Foxboro package that
will do it. (Ask on the mailing list.) • If you must do it and can’t find
a package, write a program.
If you are going to use HLBL, keep the following in mind:
• 1 line of HLBL code is roughly the same load as an AIN block.
• External OM variable references, e.g., :C:B.P when the compound is in a
different CP, suspend the block for one full block period. Thus, 20
lines setting values will take 10s to execute if the PERIOD is 0.5s.
• Internal block references don't suspend the block, but they are slower
than you might expect and will have an impact on your loading if you
have enough of them.
• Remember that code runs until it hits a WAIT, WAITUNTIL, External
Reference, or BPCSTM is reached.
• Remember that if you don't loop you code back to the top (yes,
with a GOTO), it will reach the end of the block and stop.
• Remember that ACTIVE and MA must both be set to true for the block to run.
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Duc M Do
Sent: Thu 9/25/2008 7:12 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
On Thu, September 25, 2008 7:29 pm, Corey R Clingo wrote:
> OK, I might be turning into an HLBL crackhead :)
He's done step over to the dark side!
> I never saw any mention of the 1-IND-per-compound restriction I've
> heard for all these years, and so I wonder if that limit is still
> real?
I've never heard of that limit. And we have many, many instances of
multiple IND blocks in a compound. Code away!
One thing I'd caution you, be it that you are a neophyte at HLBL. The
default BPCSTM is (IIRC) 100. If you don't change that default to
something reasonable *and* if your codes loop infinitely without a WAIT
statement, you'll drag your CP to its knee in no time flat.
It's good to learn from your mistake; it's better to learn from others'.
Duc
_______________________________________________________________________
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
* Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail and any associated files are intended solely for the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. Please do not copy it or use it for any
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Further, this e-mail
and any associated files may be confidential and further may be legally
privileged. This email is from the Invensys Process Systems business unit of
Invensys plc which is a company registered in England and Wales with its
registered office at Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF
(Registered number 166023). For a list of European legal entities within the
Invensys Process Systems business group, please click here
http://www.invensys.com/legal/default.asp?top_nav_idw&nav_id€&prev_idw.
If you have received this e-mail in error, you are on notice of its status.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from
your system. Thank you for your co-operation. You may contact our Helpdesk on
+44 (0)20 7821 3859 / 2105 or email inet.hqhelpdesk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx This e-mail
and any attachments thereto may be subject to the terms of any agreements
between Invensys (and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates) and the recipient
(and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates).
_______________________________________________________________________
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
* Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail and any associated files are intended solely for the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. Please do not copy it or use it for any
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Further, this e-mail
and any associated files may be confidential and further may be legally
privileged. This email is from the Invensys Process Systems business unit of
Invensys plc which is a company registered in England and Wales with its
registered office at Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF
(Registered number 166023). For a list of European legal entities within the
Invensys Process Systems business group, please click here
http://www.invensys.com/legal/default.asp?top_nav_id=77&nav_id=80&prev_id=77.
If you have received this e-mail in error, you are on notice of its status.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from
your system. Thank you for your co-operation. You may contact our Helpdesk on
+44 (0)20 7821 3859 / 2105 or email inet.hqhelpdesk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx This e-mail
and any attachments thereto may be subject to the terms of any agreements
between Invensys (and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates) and the recipient
(and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates).
_______________________________________________________________________
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
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Sascha Wildner
- References:
- [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Corey R Clingo
- Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Duc M Do
- Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Johnson, Alex P (IPS)
Other related posts:
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Sascha Wildner
- [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Corey R Clingo
- Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Duc M Do
- Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Johnson, Alex P (IPS)