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]>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.