Re: What to use? EtherCAT or Ethernet Powerlink with CANopen protocol
Steinhoff <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.hardware.bus.can |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Albert Saenz wrote: > Hi all, > My first participation! > I know that perhaps it is not the best forum, but in any case I believe many > of you have the same problem nowadays. > Despite CAN bus is a nice and powerful field bus (I like very much compared > with any similar industrial bus), we'd need to improve notably the speed (1 > Mbit/s is clearly not enough even multiplexing the 8 bytes telegrams at > R-PDO and minimizing all T-PDO). Bandwidth for Hard Real Time applications > were the Tick should be less than 1 ms and massive I/Os and Motion Drivers > should be controlled (typical CNC application) can not be limited by the 1 > Mb/s (even using multiple channels: 2 or more CAN buses, as our applications > is using nowadays. 1 for I/Os and 1 o 2 more for control 4 or 8 axis with a > tick of 1 ms). In case we need "multi-channel" (i.e. 2 or more independent > CNCs running at the same platform), CAN bus drastically limits and it makes > no sense in many application. > My question is (requesting opinions): > CANopen protocol is supported by EtherCAT (ETG group) and Ehernet Powerlink > (EPGS group) and that simplify migration from CAN bus (or we could even > share both). The topology of the fieldbus must fit to your application. EtherCAT is based on a ring topology ... EVERY I/O module must transmit every single bit throughout the ring. That means every I/O module could be a single point of failure .. EtherCAT is also bound to the transmission speed of 100Mbit/s. Fault tolerant master configurations (hot standby a.s.o) are hard to realize .. or nearly impossible. Ethernet Powerlink has a clean bus topology ... there are also master nodes based on co-processor boards which allows to run the bus independent from the load of the PC CPU. A problem with a single I/O module can't stop the bus. Ethernet Powerlink isn't bound to 100Mbit/s. Fault tolerant configuration are easy to realize because of the clean bus topology. --Armin > I would like to know Guru's opinion and those are many of you. > Thanks in advance for your contribution, > > Albert Saenz > Sant Cugat del Valles - Barcelona > > -- > Archives and useful links: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CANbus > Subscribe and unsubscribe at www.vector.com/canlist/ > Report any problems to <[email protected]> > -- Archives and useful links: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CANbus Subscribe and unsubscribe at www.vector.com/canlist/ Report any problems to <[email protected]>