Re: [foxboro] Informix Historian vs AIM*

  • From: tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:41:17 -0500

Richard,
        We, like you, have been using the legacy historian since AP-20 days.
We had a lot of money invested in licensing for all of them.  Typically we
had one per node to avoid pulling historical data across the carrierband.
We wanted to be able to use this data throughout our corporation but found
it too difficult to export from IA.  As a result we initially developed a
complex but effective way of passing OM data through INI-10's to an
application built inhouse to provide process data from multiple control and
lab systems to desktops throughout the corporation.  
        We used the Foxboro legacy/informix historians only for short term
historical trending on the IA system.  This is still effective for tracking
daily events and for tuning while on the IA system.  We later adopted OSI PI
as our global historical repository for data.  OSI PI has worked with almost
every vendor to establish interfaces that allow it to access data from most
systems and their "specific" focus is Process Information.  The "Process
Book" desktop client interface allows users to create their own graphics,
trends, and spreadsheets, and it is trasparent to the user from which system
the info is coming from, (IA, LIMS, brand H, or brand R)!  We first used
Foxboro's AIS, now API, to pass the Fox IA data out the 2nd enet ports of
AW's to PI nodes on our corporate WAN.  Based on what Alex says it sounds
like we could now use AIM* OPC capability to pass the data, and that might
be more efficient, but we tried to broker an Advantage Upgrade from legacy
to AIM* with no success and couldn't justify the significant expense just to
get data out of our IA system.  One has to wonder if AIM* will soon evolve
into something different because of the ARCHESTRA initiative.  Will this
obsolete AIM* and require still another license??  From a DCS perspective,
passing the data to PI and the IT realm eliminates our need to display,
reduce, and archive Process INFORMATION on control systems, and lets us
focus on our real objective, Process CONTROL.  
        What we have found is that it is more economical to spend money on
global solutions for capturing, displaying, and analyzing process data
rather than spending money on several different vendor specific solutions,
no matter how good they may be.  Having said that, if you are a smaller
operation and Foxboro is already your single source provider for all things
Process related, AIM* sounds like it would beat the pants off of the legacy
historian.  If you have other process information needs outside of IA, the
money spent on AIM* might be more effectively spent on a more global
solution.

Tom VandeWater
Dow Corning Corp.
Carrollton, KY

-----Original Message-----
From: Bakke, Richard A [mailto:rabakke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 4:35 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] Informix Historian vs AIM*



Asking for opinions concerning Informix vs AIM* Historian on 50-series:
    Having AP20's through 51D's, we have always been using the Informix
Historian.  We use it for trending (legacy Display Manager) and for
reporting (via reduction groups).  Since this Informix Historian is also
available at ver. 7 for the AW-51F we are planning to buy, is there a
really good reason to switch to the AIM* Historian?  The cost to us
would be learning new software and having the custom report package
interface re-written.  The only advantage to us that I know of would be
that AIM allows changes while still running.

Thanks,
Rich Bakke
Longview Fibre Co.

 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
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 email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
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: