Has anyone tried to install an AX supervisor on the same PC as an R2 supervisor? Does it work?
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).
Thats what I am thinking to, but like Digo, straight to AX
Digo is correct. Both R2 and Ax start the niagara daemon as a service and they utilize the same name. So you can only run one of the daemons at a time.
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.
Think of it as a "multi open protocol network adapter" with a S**t load of horsepower to do damn near anything.
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.
Originally Posted by SFeilden
It can also interface with enterprise RDBMS like SQL, Oracle, DB2, MySQL, and it will soon be integrating with devices wirelessly with its new OSS, Sedona. http://www.automatedbuildings.com/re...909tridium.htm
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.
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.
JACE6 vs. JACE2
524 MHz vs. 250 MHz Power PC processor
256MB DRAM vs. 128MB DRAM
128MB flash vs. 64MB flash
J6 = faster boot time, faster station startup time
Your trends will be limited by the amount of flash storage available. Importing histories to a supervisor allows for pretty much unlimited data archival.
You will not be disappointed by the JACE6. The oBIX avenue is usually the other way around, as in bringing R2 JACE data into an AX Supervisor.
Digo, You're right on the money about what I was getting at. And I'm greatly relieved. Thanks !