Re: [foxboro] P92 Quad KVM Extension

  • From: Corey R Clingo <corey.clingo@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:08:11 -0600

A couple of colleagues of mine used to say the same thing.  Maybe still do 
:)

At the moment, we are evaluating the KVM route as well.  We used to just 
run the video cables 75-100' from the Suns to the monitors, but the LCDs 
aren't as forgiving as the CRT of cable-length-induced timing mismatches 
between the color signals and they show visible color fringing of the DM 
screens.  The first set from vendor A we tried were absolute junk.  The 
next set we got in from vendor B appear to be better.


With robust, server-class hardware, I find this an interesting proposition 
at least.  So I'll ask a few questions if you don't mind.


How many GCIOs can one hang off of a P91 (though I hope to use our 
transition to FV to be rid of these)?


How do you handle alarm segregation since all the FVs come from one box 
and therefore appear as one alarm destination?


Thanks,
Corey Clingo
BASF Corp.






"Fitzgerrell, Kevin" <Kevin_Fitzgerrell@xxxxxxx> 
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
02/12/2009 09:59 PM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To
<foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [foxboro] P92 Quad KVM Extension






Yes, absolutely! 

I really liked the WP30/AP20 paradigm.  The major difference here is
that the WP30s were getting their data via IPC (if I remember right - I
only had a few) and my thin clients will be just an extension of my
servers.

I'd love to see this done officially too - it's much easier for me to
buy "official" solutions. 

At my site now, I've got around 50 workstations and 167 stations total
on our larger network.   Doing a committal is a real nightmare -
reducing the number of workstations makes committals simpler (although
that Windows committal is far worse than a Solaris committal).  I've
currently had to go back to CP10 style ring-routes (not so good a
paradigm as the WP30/AP20) to mitigate IPC connection problems.  The
thin-client/server model makes most of my IPC connection problems just
go away (although merging CP30s to CP270s for fewer controllers and a
higher IPC connection limit will really help too).

I'm not too worried about the annunciator keyboard.  I can run much
longer cable to GCIOs in the control rooms than I can to high resolution
monitors. I can probably extend those over fiber or even pass through
the network if I really need to.  For now I'll keep the GCIOs on the
servers and continue to put an annunciator in front of each display (or
vertical stack of displays).  In many cases the annunciator keyboards
are really only an alarm silence button - what I'd really like to see is
an "official" alarm silence button!

Cheers,

Kevin




 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
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: