Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions.
- From: "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:19:18 -0400
Re: Now let's say I want to go to version 8, when a V8 comes out that
supports both Solaris and XP on the mesh side. Is it not "cleaner", and
maybe better from a traffic standpoint, to just replace the NCNIs with ATSs,
upgrade the V7 boxes' software to V8 (and ditch the RCNIs and install
redundant NICs), cross-connect the switches, and go on down the road, as
opposed to buying new mesh switches and a new V8 host and hanging them off
one of the existing segments?
No problem doing that if:
1) You can shut your plant down
2) You have a fair amount of money to spend for the upgrades.
If either of those is a problem, simply stick the ATS pair in two adjacent
slots and add equipment.
Does that help?
Regards,
Alex Johnson
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77063
+1 713 722 2859 (voice)
+1 713 932 0222 (fax)
+1 713 722 2700 (switchboard)
alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Corey R Clingo
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:48 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions.
Put this guy on the Cassandra wiki [I am an I/A god because I made Alex J.
say, "Truth is - I don't know. (Man, that hurts.)"] :-D
Seriously, I thought I understood this, but the recent discussion has left
me wondering. Say I have a system with two segments. Each segment has
some CPs, and some WPs and (on one segment) an AW (D/E vintage) that
connect into 1x8s with DNBTs. Each segment also has a pair of NCNIs that
connect it to a V7 switch (a redundant pair, actually). The V7 switch also
has an AW51G and a few WP51Fs, and an AW70/XP (I don't know what P-number
that is), all running at version 7, connected with RCNIs. The CPs' host
is the AW51G connected to the switch. These switches are some of the ones
certified to work with V8.
Now let's say I want to go to version 8, when a V8 comes out that supports
both Solaris and XP on the mesh side. Is it not "cleaner", and maybe
better from a traffic standpoint, to just replace the NCNIs with ATSs,
upgrade the V7 boxes' software to V8 (and ditch the RCNIs and install
redundant NICs), cross-connect the switches, and go on down the road, as
opposed to buying new mesh switches and a new V8 host and hanging them off
one of the existing segments?
Corey Clingo
BASF Corp.
"Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/13/2005 02:13 PM
Please respond to foxboro
To: foxboro
cc:
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction
questions.
Re: If we already have 4 Nodebus segments connected with NCNIs to the V7.X
switches, is adding a separate 1x8 loaded with NCNI's and ATSs to create a
5th Nodebus segment for interface to a new V8.X AW station and any CP270s
that we add (or upgrade to) going to be a Foxboro supported option? Stated
another way, when NCNIs and V7.X switches are used to interconnect the
segments, are 5 Nodebus segments allowed?
That's a really good question. One of the best I've had in weeks.
For those that do not know, V7.0 systems allow five (5) control segments
in
a Node. A control segment is one that has control stations in it. A
segment
with only WPs/AWs does not count as a control segment. WPs/AWs attached
with
RCNIs do not count either.
Version 7.1 bumped the limit to eight (8) control segments in Node.
The limitation is imposed by our network fault detection software.
What Neil is asking is, "How does a large Mesh network impact this
limitation?"
Truth is - I don't know. (Man, that hurts.)
I'll have to ask and get back to you.
Regards,
Alex Johnson
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77063
+1 713 722 2859 (voice)
+1 713 932 0222 (fax)
+1 713 722 2700 (switchboard)
alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
