RE: Back on the Soap Box
There are a few of things I need to bring up: First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2 and not having to reboot the CP's. Bo says that he has seen it work, yet I have had sources in Foxboro recommend against doing it. Does anyone know why we would be told this? Second, in addition Bo's desire to see bootless CP upgrades (with economics dictating longer intervals between shutdowns, we could use that feature, too), I'd like to see FoxView/FoxDraw brought beyond what I still feel is beta test reliability and features. Two years ago, we were promised that the next version of the package would have dynamic trending - where is it? I'd also like to know if FoxView is still being developed or is it being abandoned in favor of a Wonderware based product? I know this isn't as critical as Bo's issue, but it's important for planning and upgrades. Finally, there are two and half working days left until the User's Conference. Has anyone given any thought to how those of us who feel that bootless CP upgrades are a critical issue can organize and vote to see that it gets the attention it deserves? Are there any other specific items that we can bring up - additional function blocks, time delayed alarming, better documentation of existing control blocks, integerated expert system functions, fuzzy ? Granted, not everyone will have the same issues, but I think the group should be able to form a consensus to support each other's issues. John --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe foxboro in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Back on the Soap Box
x-html!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN HTML HEAD META HTTP-EQUIV=Content-Type CONTENT=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 META NAME=Generator CONTENT=MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2651.75 TITLERE: Back on the Soap Box/TITLE /HEAD BODY PFONT SIZE=2Darn, I was beaten to the punch.nbsp; I had hoped to utilize the lull before the storm to propose a new 'tall pole' to vote on at the Users Group Meeting which I hope will can act as an umbrella to capture many other specific development issues (even Bo's need for an on-line CP upgrade)./FONT/P PFONT SIZE=2The quality and speed of software development needs to be improved./FONT /P PFONT SIZE=2The overall quality is certainly lacking in products such as FoxView/FoxDraw.nbsp; There is going to be a V99.2.1 release only because V99.2 was so buggy.nbsp; And how come it is about the 3rd time that we have been notified that Foxboro has finally figured out why the AMD-chip based CP's (CP30B, CP40B, CP60) have issues with maintaining fault tolerance.nbsp; And why does I/A for the 51 series still come bundled with Solaris 2.5.1 when Sun only 'officially' supports 2 releases back.nbsp; (Solaris 8, i.e. 2.8 is the current release.)nbsp; Do you know that the Ethernet driver (hme) in 2.5.1 needs to be patched to just to be able to reliably communicate on a 10/100 switched network?nbsp; Do you know that the base driver with V6.2 that Foxboro extends to support nodebus communication does not include the necessary Sun patches?nbsp; I could go on /FONT/P PFONT SIZE=2Hey, I can understand that one of the consequences of modern software development is that bugs sneak through with releases, but the CAR process is also painfully slow.nbsp; (This theme was represented on the e-mail list with the discussion that quot;Have you rebooted yetquot; is too often the TAC solution method.quot;)/FONT/P PFONT SIZE=2Bill Ketelhut and the others at the executive level need to hear that their development process is broken.nbsp; Either they are working on the wrong things (Bo's request may be one of the things that they have dropped) or the things that they are working on arrive too slowly and are filled with bugs./FONT/P PFONT SIZE=2If they is going to be coalition voting on subjects at the Users Group meeting, then a critical, executive level directed message needs to be delivered./FONT/P PFONT SIZE=2Thanks,/FONT /P PFONT SIZE=2John Metsker/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2General Mills, Inc/FONT /P PFONT SIZE=2nbsp; /FONT BRFONT SIZE=2-Original Message-/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2From: John Miller [A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A]/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:29 AM/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box/FONT /P BR PFONT SIZE=2There are a few of things I need to bring up:/FONT /P PFONT SIZE=2First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2 and/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2not having to reboot the CP's.nbsp; Bo says that he has seen it work, yet I have/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2had sources in Foxboro recommend against doing it.nbsp; Does anyone know why we/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2would be told this?/FONT /P PFONT SIZE=2Second, in addition Bo's desire to see bootless CP upgrades (with economics/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2dictating longer intervals between shutdowns, we could use that feature,/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2too), I'd like to see FoxView/FoxDraw brought beyond what I still feel is/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2beta test reliability and features.nbsp; Two years ago, we were promised that/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2the next version of the package would have dynamic trending - where is it?/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2I'd also like to know if FoxView is still being developed or is it being/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2abandoned in favor of a Wonderware based product?nbsp; I know this isn't as/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2critical as Bo's issue, but it's important for planning and upgrades./FONT /P PFONT SIZE=2Finally, there are two and half working days left until the User's/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2Conference.nbsp; Has anyone given any thought to how those of us who feel that/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2bootless CP upgrades are a critical issue can organize and vote to see that/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2it gets the attention it deserves?nbsp; Are there any other specific items that/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2we can bring up - additional function blocks, time delayed alarming, better/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2documentation of existing control blocks, integerated expert system/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2functions, fuzzy ?nbsp; Granted, not everyone will have the same issues, but I/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2think the group should be able to form a consensus to support each other's/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2issues.nbsp;nbsp; /FONT /P PFONT SIZE=2John/FONT /P PFONT SIZE=2---/FONT BRFONT SIZE=2This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All /FONT BRFONT SIZE=2postings from this list
Re: Back on the Soap Box
Hi all! On the subject of true on-line upgrades, if the process wasn't critical enough to have dual busses and fault tolerant CPs, then it's probably not so critical it can't be shut down for upgrades every couple of years -- just my opinion of course. In my plant, downtime is very expensive, but if upgrades can be timed to coincide with other major scheduled downtime (mill liner changes happen every 6 months) then for me they are effectively cost free, so the on-line upgrade issue has not been of particular importance to me. If I could get Foxboro to add decent administrative and maintenance tools to I/A it would be a relief. If I could get Foxboro to provide advanced control blocks in I/A similar to the fuzzy and MPC blocks in Delta V (and Connieseur is not what I mean) it would save me the considerable effort of writing my own or getting that functionality from other vendors. I would certainly be happy to see Foxboro respond directly to the on line upgrade issue this year, however, as that appears to be a major concern for many users. Regards, Kevin FitzGerrell Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc. --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe foxboro in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Back on the Soap Box
I fully agree with Bo. From my perspective I would only install none FT on plants which could tolerate the shutdown in the failure case. Therefore for these units if I want to install a new image it's simple a case of cost against benefit analysis. The problem starts when we fit FT systems knowing we will only get a shutdown every 4+ years. The upgrade strategy that Bo describes is very similar to that already adopted by Foxboro for their online Spectrum UCM migration. So in principle we know it is sound thinking and has worked, all be it with different hardware. You have my support for the push to make this issue the only tall poll. If you need further support from the UK I will include this subject for our next UG meeting(October). For myself I have been pushing this topic hard through the UK organisation both with my Shell hat and also in my position as Chairman off the UK UG. As I think has been said. There may be many thing which irritate you as a user of I/A. BUT in my opinion the system is basically sound and is only seriously compromised by control station issues. Regards, Dave __ D.G. Williams, CME/72/04 Tel: (0151 350) Ext: 4480 Fax:4566 Shell UK Ltd Downstream Oil, Stanlow Manufacturing Complex PO Box 3, Ellesmere Port, South Wirral, L65 4HB Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pager 01399 760805 Message 01399 1144 __ -- From: Stear, Bo[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 July 2000 19:58 To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List' Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box I would think that the most likely target for online upgrade would be those CP's that are fault tolerant and that have dual field busses. I can't visualize any possible way to provide online upgrade capability otherwise and I wouldn't want to start off by asking for the impossible. -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 1:48 PM To: Foxboro DCS Mail List Subject: Re: Back on the Soap Box To add to what Neil just said, what about having to EPROM the FBMs, do we have to have redundant I/O too? David --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe foxboro in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe foxboro in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe foxboro in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Back on the Soap Box
To complicate the issue further, there are a few other scenarios we should consider for our definition of what a bootless CP upgrades is: 1. Some CPs are installed as non-Fault tolerant. In fact, there is a version of the CP60 that can not be made Fault Tolerant (not sure if it is a physical limitation or just a license limitation). Are we asking for a bootless CP upgrade for this type of installation? 2. Do we consider the Micro I/A to be a CP? It is to me, but it can not be made Fault Tolerant. Neil Martin Neil_Martin@hunTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AT i-net@CCM tsman.com AT cc: (bcc: Neil Martin/US/PC/HUNTSMAN) i-net Subject: Re: Back on the Soap Box 07/19/00 04:51 PM Folks, I also would very much like to have bootless CP upgrades. Since it can be a complicated issue and may have different meanings to each of us, maybe it would be helpful if we are all on the same page about how we are defining an on-line upgrade and also that we have similar ideas as to how the CPs function in general terms. My assumptions are listed below, what does everyone else think? Feel free to make corrections. 1. First, my understanding of block processing is that the CP image (or what ever you call it) contains one instance of the software for each block type can possibly exist within the CP type. This is like having a software template for each block type. When we create a block, basically it is just the fill-in-the-blank text information and compiled sequence code that gets downloaded into the CP. Every block processing cycle, the CP goes down the list of blocks in order looking for a block that needs to run, and basis its block type, it runs the correct block software template and loads the template with the correct information for processing. By not duplicating all of the software for a block every time a new one is created, the CP saves on memory. 2. In the past, I believe the CP image could only be changed via a reboot of the CP. For a boot;less CP software upgrade, are we suggesting that Foxboro a) not make any changes to the CP code - i.e. not make any corrections, new parameters, or add features, b) not require the CP to be rebooted to continue to operate as it previously has, c) to somehow make it so that the CP processing can be put on hold while all of the block template information is being changed out (If it takes a while, is it OK?), or d) some other suggestion? Stear; Bo [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 'Foxboro Mail Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] m AT i-net AT i-net@CCM, '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] AT i-net@CCM 07/19/00 cc: (bcc: Neil Martin/US/PC/HUNTSMAN) 04:43 PM Subject: Back on the Soap Box Ok folks, time is drawing near for us to put our heads together and inform Foxboro of our most important issues. The International Users meeting is just around the corner. Let me repeat myself: It is costing my company (and me as a stockholder) lotsa bucks to prepare our process people, engineering people, and technical staff for an upgrade to any Control Processor image. It's dangerous and scary as well. Some of us have processes that can't possibly be interrupted for years at a time. I've just recently found myself installing I/A on a furnace with an 18 year turnaround. Try that online... Here's the plan. Rather than give Foxboro too many issues to choose from, I would like to get your help in making sure that a REAL online upgrade capability be the TOP POLE item on any list they wish to compile this year. We can only accomplish this by putting aside some of our other (to me) smaller issues until we either get this commitment or have them state that they can't do it, ever. Understand that this is a major undertaking and even if we can get this done, it won't happen anytime soon. I'm sure it will take a new way to utilize the dual fieldbus and FT CP's to make this happen both on the hardware and software side. Until I am convinced that this is an impossible request, online upgrades are my top priority. I do know of at least one other vendor that claims this capability. For those of you that will be attending the meeting, please post your votes with mine. For those of you that can't attend, please write a C.A.R. requesting your version of an online upgrade capability. Do this BEFORE the meeting so that they can start to get a feeling for our dedication. Like you, I have a 'wish list' too. I would really like to look around at my 22 node system and find that I don't have anything to do. No software bugs, no CP reboots, no failed FBM's or processors. These are short term goals and you all probably know
Re: Back on the Soap Box
To add to what Neil just said, what about having to EPROM the FBMs, do we have to have redundant I/O too? David --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe foxboro in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
