[foxboro] OMI - Operator Message Interface
- From: brad.s.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:19:24 -0500
I wanted to resurrect an old thread, because time marches on and I still
have no solution.
We are moving from v4.3.2 to v7.x and upgrading our AW51B's to AW51F's. We
are still using RBatch (1) and use OMI extensively for operator interface
to sequence code. I see from an old post (Nov 2003) that FoxView does not
support OMI ... if that is the case, then I guess we'll have to remain on
DM, even after we upgrade our WP30's. We have 3 instances of OMI running
(both 51B's and a PW-OE) which provides us with 57 message files (19 per
instance), and we are using every single file, and could use about 20-30
more. In Feb 2003, Alex Johnson mentioned a package called ODS which
supposedly replace OMI, but I've never heard of it.
My problem is that I am rapidly running out of hosts for OMI, and I'm not
certain that it will even run when those hosts are upgraded to newer hw &
sw. We will be replacing our PW-OE with X-windows, so I plan on keeping
that for OMI (assuming it will still run v4.3 on a v7.x network). On my
bench I have 3 PW-OE in various stages of repair which I would like to get
back running again to provide OMI hosts. I would have a tough sell to my
bosses to upgrade my WP51's to AW51's just to be able to host message
files.
So my questions to the list are ...
Does anyone have a feel for whether my PW-OE idea will work (as long as I
can keep the hardware alive) ?
Does anyone have other solutions for "interactive" operator messages from
sequence code ?
Here is my original posting from April 2004 (edited for present
conditions):
Our system is ... v4.3 (soon to be v7), 2x AW51B's (soon to be 2x AW51F's),
2x WP51's, 2x WP30's, 2x X-stations, 1x PW-OE ... you may be thinking "How
do they keep that old stuff running?" Well, it's not always easy. We are a
batch plant with several operating units, each running concurrent sequence
blocks, so I need a way to view & respond to messages from more than 1
sequence block at a time. We use OMI (operator message interface), which
works well for us. The problem is that each instance of OMI can only host
19 message files. We have one running in each 51B and in the PW-OE.
(Originally, we had 2x AP20's which were replaced by 1x 51B, thus losing us
an OMI.) We are set to replace the PW-OE with an Exceed station, thus
losing another OMI. We'll be left with only 2 possible OMI hosts ... the
51B's. Our problem is that 2 OMI's (38 message files) is not enough. Short
of trying to keep the PW-OE running as as OMI host (plus the 3 other
PW-OE's I have in various states of repair), does anyone have a solution?
Perhaps a way of hosting more than 19 files per station? Or an alternative
to using OMI? I've thought of upgrading some of the WP30's to 51's, but
that a very expensive option. (Of course, when WP30's are no longer
supported, we may have no choice ... like with our PW-OE's.)
This was Brian Long's reply:
I don't have an answer for you but you are not alone. I have a whole bunch
of 51B's and WP30's, and plan to run them til they quit. I discussed the
with Foxboro a 100 times and can't seem to get anywhere.
There were other postings about "home-grown" message interfaces, but I
don't feel that I should have to re-create something that Foxboro already
has a great solution for.
Brad Wilson
Process Control Engineer
ExxonMobil Chemical Co
Edison Synthetics Plant
732-321-6115
732-321-6177 fax
Brad.S.Wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
- » [foxboro] OMI - Operator Message Interface
