I think that if you do, you won't be able to run stations simultaneously on both systems.
If I'm not mistaken, both versions register the platform daemon as a service, and you can't run both at the same time. But i could be wrong (I skipped R2 and went straight to AX).
So can different manufacturers' systems really exist on a single Niagra AX platform. I read through their website and I'm still tyring to understand it.
Yes. Tridium's products (sw and hw), are sold and distributed under many different OEMs/brands (see http://www.tridium.com/cs/partners), can talk BACnet® (IP and MS/TP), LonWorks®, MODBUS®, SNMP, OPC, oBIX, as well as interface with many other legacy systems through additional drivers.
My previous answer was in reference to running both R2 and AX on the same platform (R2 is the predecessor to the Niagara-AX framework).
The only possible way to do this would be to have two separate Operating Systems under a virtual environment (VMware, VirtualBox, MS Virtual PC, Xen, etc). As long as you are not in violation of the licensing agreement. However, you'd have zero support from the OEM channel.
Either way, you could keep them separate and still share information between the two stations via oBIX.
Here's the deal: two AHU's controllers were replaced due to damage and because of the size of these units we had to use WEB-201's. The facility has a large R2 system already in place but because adding oBix would be an upgrade on the existing system the insurance won't pay for it so we added an html link in R2. We are only adding the AX supervisor because the customer is not satisfied with the graphical interface in the 201's (very slow). All these steps we have taken have been going in the oBix direction, we could have easily thrown in a couple xl15's and an R2 Jace and it would have worked right for the most part. We just thought this was the best way to go for all involved, it is though to get customers to upgrade.
Anyway, it sounds like I need to pull a Dell out of a hat.
Has anyone tried to install an AX supervisor on the same PC as an R2 supervisor? Does it work?
So, whether an AX supervisor and R2 supervisor can run on the same PC properly been answered as "no".
Now similarly, can an AX Jace performing its own mini-supervisor role (no AX Web Supervisor) on the same LAN as an R2 Supervisor PC ?? This is a configuration that is in the works for our small campus. Will both the AX & R2 systems work on the same LAN? We don't need them to integrate, sharing data, as a hyperlink on each other's user interface good enough.
-separate buildings, same LAN. I don't know if the subnet masks are the same or not in each building, but the PCs of the two buildings are on the same network neighborhood, if that is relevant.
When swapping R2 supervisor PCs we had both PCs hooked on the LAN at the same time to drag files from old PC to the new PC. When the Niagara service is running on either PC, the Niagara R2 system worked fine. However when both PCs had the Niagara R2 service running, I believe neither one of them worked properly.
Just concerned a similar conflict could happen with AX & R2 operating on the same LAN.
Nothing to be worried about here. You're talking about two separate stations on two separate platforms. They are designed to be on the same LAN and cooperate.
Two AX stations can run concurrently on a single platform (PC based), if you are licensed to do so. The demo license we use to engineer stations allows for just that. But each station needs to run on a different fox port, and cannot both access the same field bus (e.g. Lon), unless you have more than 1 lon adapter.
In your case there is no mini-supervisor role - you're simply serving up the UI from the JACE. To be in a supervisor role means to have subordinate JACEs.
Hyperlinks from one to another is fine. The alternative is data sharing between the two via oBIX.
I'm so glad there's nothing to be worried about here. Thanks for taking a big worry off my list. Once I start worrying though, it's hard to stop immediately.
Since I've never had a Jace serve the user interface before, I hope that the new Jace600 will keep up with a reasonable number of trends and graphics, and that the installing vendor doesn't have to short change the interface bells & whistles just to keep the performance up. -noting Ddcfreak's comment about the 201 serving graphics too slowly for the customer's taste, and choosing to add an AX server as a result. Not knowing if slow graphics from a Jace 201 is a result of maxing out its resources or if the Jace201 processor is too slow to move the graphics data in a manner that we normally expect.
If a performance bottleneck results from serving the new user interface from a AX Jace600 instead of an AX supervisor PC, could we switch gears and have the AX Jace's station served from our existing R2 supervisor with an Obix intermediary? Even if possible, is this method desirable?
For instance, is putting a large programming effort into tying an AX Jace to an R2 supervisor detrimental to the useful life of the AX Jace job's programming effort? I wonder if our R2 system and server be kept runnable on the latest PC OS for the next, say 10years? I take it that Sedona wireless extension will not have an R2 version?
Worry mode is out of resources for now. I don't intend to burden anyone with my rambling questions, and I appreciate so much the responses I've recieved in the past, as many have been very helpful.