Re: A V6.3 system allows 3 segments, right? Yes. Re: A V7.X does not support WP51D's and AW51E's, right? Ds and Es do not run V7.x software, but co-existence is fully supported. Re: We have been told we could upgrade to V6.5.2, keep the WP51D's and AW51E's, install switches and we would have increased the segment limitation from 3 to 5. You would also need to install an AW at V7.x to run NFD to monitor the switch (and I hope do other useful things). If you are at V7.1 or later, you could have 8 control segments and "unlimited" segments with just WPs/AWs. Re: So could I state that what Alex say's about V7.0 is true also for V6.5.2? Is this correct? In what regard? V6 does not support the "intra-Node" switch. V7 is required to add switches "intra-Node." V8 is required to add switches "inter-Node." Does that answer your question? Re: Expansion You have the following options: 1) Add 1x8 in the main room to gain slots and then extend with NCNIs at each end. A given segment may have up to 6 cell busses: If you are using IE32s, you may have as many as 3 of them. If you are using 1x8s, you may have as many as 6 of them. I suspect that you have room to add 1x8s to get slots. This requires: a) 1 1x8 in the main room b) a pair of NCNIs the new 1x8 c) Adding the 1x8 to the existing equipment 2) Add switches and an AW at V7.x to the current room and extend up to 2Km using fiber to a 1x8 with NCNIs in the remote facility. This requires: a) 1 pair of switches b) 2 NCNIs as appropriate c) 1 AW51 or AW70 to manage the network 3) Use ATS and Mesh to reach to the remote location. This requires: a) 1 pair of ATSs b) 1 pair of switches c) 1 AW70 Of the three, I'd look at 1) first. Does this 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 Pat Martens Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:16 PM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] More future direction questions. A V6.3 system allows 3 segments, right ? A V7.X does not support WP51D's and AW51E's, right ? We have been told we could upgrade to V6.5.2, keep the WP51D's and AW51E's, install switches and we would have increased the segment limitation from 3 to 5. So could I state that what Alex say's about V7.0 is true also for V6.5.2? Is this correct ? We currently have a node which has 2 segments (CP's and AW/WP mixed). (+ another node with 3 segments but we don't have any extension problems there) We need to extend the 2 segment node but there are only 3 slots left (of the 2 cabinets * 4 racks * 8 slots). We can fit the NCNI's in here but the problem is the new segment will be in another (new) technical room some 100 meter away, leaving only 1 free slot available in the existing technical room. So the availability of 1 or more extra segments would leave a bit more room for extension. On the other hand, we could equip the new technical room with a V8.x. The proper way to connect this would be by means of a 'bridge node' if I understand things correctly ? In that case can we use our existing applications like DMCbridge, AIM* historian etc. from our existing AW51E's. There would be no WP's on the V8.x syste, only a AW70 with the soul purpose of booting the V8.x control stations. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:13 PM 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 -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neil Martin Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:04 PM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions. Alex, Thank you for taking the time to explain the options and thought process - it does help us understand. However, for those of who already made a leap to upgrading to NCNIs, and some V7.X AW stations and switches, the ATS implementation is definitely a step backwards. FYI, my concern is not that I have to install a V8.X AW by adding a new station or upgrading an older station or software, I already new I would have to have at least one 8.X AW station. And yes, I am hoping I can wait long enough for the Unix version of 8.X to arrive. 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? Neil Martin, P.E. Huntsman Polymers Corporation 2505 South Grandview Odessa, TX. 79766 ph) 432-640-8436 pager)432-742-4289 email page)4327424289@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <alex.johnson@xxxxxx cc: vensys.com> Subject: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions. Sent by: foxboro-bounce@freel ists.org 10/13/2005 12:44 PM Please respond to foxboro Not sure that this got out. 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 Re: We used NCNIs and the V7.X switches to replace the FONBEs in our 4 existing Nodebus segments. Besides allowing us to install V7.X stations, this resulted in greatly reducing the traffic on our originally very heavily loaded single Nodebus system. Good. I wish more people took advantage of this V7.x capability. Re: Using an existing Nodebus segment to interface V8.X stations and any CP270s to the V6.X/V7.X DCS portion of our system is going to raise the Nodebus traffic impact on the Nodebus segment the ATS modules are installed in and could likely overload it - it is a big step backwards for us. I'm not trying to minimize your request. It's not unreasonable, but there are reasons we did what we did and I'd like to present them so you can understand what we were thinking when we designed a single ATS module as opposed to two different ones. So, here we go... The various cases are: 1) Expanding a CBLAN network with a "new" Node of Mesh equipment 2) Moving a Node from a CBLAN network a) V7.x Nodes b) V6.x Nodes 3) Expanding a Node on a non CBLAN system a) V7.x Nodes b) V6.x Nodes I believe that this is a complete set of cases. Now, I'll tell you how we think the equipment fits the cases. As in any system design, loading must be calculated to ensure proper operation, but I think we have you covered. Case 1) Expanding a CBLAN Network Add a "bridge node" to the CBLAN Network. This Node consists of a 1x8 with just a pair of CBLIs and a pair of ATSs in it. CBLI is hosted by a V7.x AW and ATS hosted by V8 AW70. This option allows the "bridge node" to handle all traffic between the Mesh and the CBLAN networks. In this configuration, there is considerable throughput. As Nodes are migrated to the Mesh (using ATS), the load here should go up and then down to zero. Case 2.a) - Moving a Node from a CBLAN Network for V7.x Nodes Put the ATS and a NCNI into a dedicated 1x8 - This segment handles quite a bit of throughput (1000 packets per second). This option is ONLY necessary if the CBLAN's segment is overloaded which would be very unusual. The disadvantage is the cost and space of the 1x8. Or Put the ATS in a relatively unloaded segment hanging from a V7 switch usually the one which hold the CBLI. This is the nominal case. We believe that the traffic from any one node to the mesh is unlikely to overload a Nodebus segment segment since the CBLAN was handling it. Case 2.b) - Moving a Node from a CBLAN Network for V6.x Nodes Put the ATS into a Nodebus segment on where the CBLI was. Since the CBLI's segment is functioning, using an ATS will not make it worse. Case 3.a) Expanding a Node on a non CBLAN system under V7.x Put the ATS in a relatively unloaded segment hanging from a V7 switch. This is the nominal case; we are assuming that the Node segmentation has freed headroom on the segment. It is important to note that the traffic isolation is retained at both the ATS and the NCNI. That is, the only added traffic in the segment holding the ATS is data that is supposed to move into the Node. It is highly unlikely to overload a V7.x segment. Case 3.b) Expanding a Node on a non CBLAN system under V7.x If you have used FONBEs, replace them with NCNIs (a good idea in any case) and add the ATS to the segment that sinks/sources most of the data going to the Mesh. It is important to note that the traffic isolation is retained at the ATS. That is, the only added traffic in the Node is supposed to move into or out of the Node. This situation is no different than adding a CBLI in the "old days." So, for larger expansions - and CBLAN replacements - we recommend a "bridge node". For V7.x systems, we believe that most customers will have the slot space and lightly loaded segments. For V6.x system, we believe that the use of the ATS is no worse than the CBLI that was (or would have been) used in the "old days." At the end of the day, we think we made a reasonable decision for the vast majority of the installed base. Does this make sense? _______________________________________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________________________________ 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