Re: What to use? EtherCAT or Ethernet Powerlink with CANopen protocol

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The module without power supply does not bypass, but the previous 
> device (from master point of view)
> does. Of course all the devices "after" the one without power supply 
> disappear but all the devices
> "before" remain active.
>
> Powerlink behaves similarly as long as the internal cut-through switch 
> is sharing same power supply
> with the rest of the device.

Yes ... but this is specific for the physical implementation of such a 
module and the bus.
Hot swap of modules are always possible with Ethernet Powerlink if the 
physical bus structure is a clean bus
without inter module dependencies.

But have in mind also a hub could be a single point of failure ... but 
this wouldn't stop the whole system.

Hower ... what behavior is acceptable depends on the application.
The behavior of EtherCAT could be optimal if you have to control the 
material flow over several convayers e.g.

Regards

--Armin

>
> This behavior is a consequence of using full-duplex Ethernet physical 
> layer instead of bus-type
> physical layer, e.g. CAN or coaxial-Ethernet.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -H
>
>
>
>
> *Steinhoff*
>
>
> 	
> 	From: Steinhoff <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: 11.12.2012 13:41
> Subject: Re: [CANLIST] What to use? EtherCAT or Ethernet Powerlink 
> with CANopen protocol
> Sent by: [email protected]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> From logical point of view, EtherCAT is a ring, but each device has an 
> ability to bypass
> connected physical segment if it is down.
>
> That's only partly true. If the power supply is broken of the 
> errornous module it doesn't bypass anything.
> Yes ... if one module is broken there is the possibility to split the 
> initial ring into two rings ... but this works just for one broken module.
>
> --Armin
>
> Physically EtherCAT networks can form any
> kind of topology.
>
> Powerlink follows standard Ethernet physical layer and if other than 
> star topology is
> required, hubs are needed. In practice, "hubs" are actually 
> cut-through type switches.
> Logical operation of Powerlink is based on a managing node requesting 
> controlled
> nodes to transmit point-to-multipoint packets.
>
> Redundant masters are challenging in any technology, even in CAN-based 
> CANopen,
> where change of effective NMT-master expects NMT-reset. However, in 
> CAN-based
> CANopen networks all transmissions can be asynchronous and NMT-master 
> blackout
> does not necessarily introduce any effect on the process signaling.
>
> On the contrary, master-node needs to trigger all transmissions in 
> both EtherCAT and
> Powerlink networks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -H
>
>
>
> *Steinhoff*
>
> 	
> 	From: Steinhoff _<[email protected]>_ 
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> To: 'CANLIST' _<[email protected]>_ <mailto:[email protected]>
> Cc: Albert Saenz _<[email protected]>_ <mailto:[email protected]>
> Date: 11.12.2012 11:33
> Subject: Re: [CANLIST] What to use? EtherCAT or Ethernet Powerlink 
> with CANopen protocol
> Sent by: [email protected]_ 
> <mailto:[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]>_ 
> <mailto:[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]>_ 
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the 
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient 
> is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly 
> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message 
> from your system. The sender does not accept liability for any errors 
> or omissions in the contents of this message which may arise as a 
> result of the e-mail transmission.
>
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the 
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient 
> is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly 
> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message 
> from your system. The sender does not accept liability for any errors 
> or omissions in the contents of this message which may arise as a 
> result of the e-mail transmission.