Fieldserver, LON, Explicit communications and maintenance
We are using fieldservers to communicate with some Trane LON devices. We are doing this explicitly via the Fieldserver configuration. There is no network management tool - all devices are blind to one another- they are not commissioned in the LonMaker fashion. The reason we went this direction was due to feedback and documentation from Fieldserver stating if we have active connections to more than 15 devices we needed to use an explicit configuration.
With this being said, will I be able to use Trane's Rover software to configure devices? If not, how would I go about maintaining and/or configuring devices from a GUI with the information above as a starting point?
I hope my question makes sense.
I've dealt with some devices that have the same restriction, only they use 2 address table entries for implicit communication, so all that is available is 13. In LonMaker there is a way around this using a one to many binding and a few more details, depending on just how many devices you are bound too. I know I was at one point looking at an L-Proxy as it supports up to 512 address tables, but that was w/LonMaker.
A little bird happened to tell me "The limitation is due to the restriction in address table entries of the device because of their LON implementation. It is not a LON limitation.
If he wants to do what he wants he would need a LGATE if it is a LON/BACnet thing because we support 512 address table entries. Works within or without LNS so he can use his Rover tool."
BTW - for those following some earlier stuff, since they can do it does that make it 7 or 8?
Last edited by crab master; 05-25-2011 at 10:52 AM.
Reason: Links to L-Proxy and L-GATE & BTW
"How it can be considered "Open" is beyond me. Calling it "voyeur-ed" would be more accurate." pka LeroyMac, SkyIsBlue, fka Freddy-B, Mongo, IndyBlue
BIG Government = More Dependents
"Any 'standard' would be great if it didn't get bastardised by corporate self interest." MatrixTransform
I assume you want to keep the fieldserver in place, if so as long as the fieldserver is using only the neuron ID to talk to the devices then you should be able to put a GUI on top that works in the same manner, and none of those softwares/devices should care if Rover comes along and commissions the network for configuration of the nodes, because that is what Rover will do.
Originally Posted by dirk_diggler
Since explicit addressing may mean different things to different people, you need to ask whoever programmed your fieldsever to be sure how it is looking/talking to your nodes. Then go from there.
I do want to keep the fieldservers in place. I've never commissioned with Rover so I don't know how it works, what it needs/manipulates, etc. It is the existing tool to make configuration property changes.
Originally Posted by amigo
My understanding is Rover should default into passive mode. In passive mode it should not affect anything, and it should let you do normal configuration of units, like setpoint changes, etc.
If your fieldserver use the DSN (Domain, Subnet, Node) parameters of the devices then do not go into active mode in Rover, because all that will get scrambled.
I think that will sort me out. Thanks.
Originally Posted by amigo