| Author |
Message |
|
|
 Posted: Jul 10, 2012 - 08:22 AM |
|
Joined: May 22, 2012
Posts: 63
|
|
Hello,
We are using BitCloud Profile and Home Automation.
We need to select the memory (flash, eeprom and ram) for the coordinator (trust center).
The scenario will be a trust center with several routers and 10 end devices per router. We need to chose the memory for the coordinator taking into account that we want to save the network configuration in non volatil memory to restore it if there is a power failure.
I think the coordinator stores some tables (routing, neighbord, address map). What are the size for each entry of these tables?
With this value we can dimmension the memory needed or if we have a particular value of memory we can find out the maximun number of nodes in the network.
Thank you for your help. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 11, 2012 - 04:53 PM |
|
Joined: Apr 15, 2009
Posts: 4870
Location: San Jose, CA
|
|
| What devices you have in mind? BitCloud PS works on a very limited set of devices, so your options are limited. Table entries sizes are described in the documentation. |
_________________
The opinions and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else that I’m affiliated with.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 11, 2012 - 06:36 PM |
|
Joined: May 22, 2012
Posts: 63
|
|
Imaging a house with several rooms. We want to collect
some information for each room.
My scenario is formed by:
- One Trust Center
- One router per room. The function for this device is to collect the data information of the room and to send to the nodes of the room some configuration commands. For this roll I am thinking in using a remote control device
- 5-10 end devices per room. This end devices could be occupancy sensor (with temperature measuerment cluster), dimmer-switch, dimmer-light.
My intention is to reuse these HA devices and add the clusters that I need and make the bindings between the remote control and that clusters present in the end-devices.
For example, if I need a on/off cluster, I will add this cluster as a server in one device and I will add this cluster as a client in the remote control.
For the data information that does not fit with any cluster, I will use direct communication (unicast).
What do you think about this approach?
I need to chose the memory size of the coordinator for creating a network with the largest number of nodes (and therefore rooms) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 11, 2012 - 06:43 PM |
|
Joined: Apr 15, 2009
Posts: 4870
Location: San Jose, CA
|
|
Again, BitCloud is supported on a very limited number of devices, what devices you have in mind? AVR? ARM? Xmega?
If you don't absolutely have to use HA, then DON'T. I can't stress this enough. It is a nightmare to work with, with a little added benefit if you don't ever plan to interoperate with other vendors.
Quote:
For the data information that does not fit with any cluster, I will use direct communication (unicast).
Mixing both ways is the worst imaginable approach, your system will not be able to work with other devices, so why not go easy way and implement everything on top of plain ZigBee.
As far as memory goes, it looks like this scenario can be implemented on any supported platform. |
_________________
The opinions and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else that I’m affiliated with.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2012 - 08:44 AM |
|
Joined: May 22, 2012
Posts: 63
|
|
|
Quote:
Again, BitCloud is supported on a very limited number of devices, what devices you have in mind? AVR? ARM? Xmega?
We are going to work with ATMega128RFA1.
Quote:
If you don't absolutely have to use HA, then DON'T. I can't stress this enough. It is a nightmare to work with, with a little added benefit if you don't ever plan to interoperate with other vendors.
This is one of the requirements of our client. He wants to integrate other HA compliant devices in our network.
But he doesn`t want to integrate our developed devices in other networks. I am thinking in mixing both ways of communication for the devices developed by us with Atmel technology. This devices will not be integrated in other HA network.
So, we intend to develop a network that permits other devices of different vendors to join with our network but not the other direction of integration.
I would like to use the direct communication because the limitations of the clusters in HA profile. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2012 - 08:50 AM |
|
Joined: Apr 15, 2009
Posts: 4870
Location: San Jose, CA
|
|
| Ok, so you have selected MCU, there is only one option. Your scenario should fit into this MCU. |
_________________
The opinions and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else that I’m affiliated with.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2012 - 09:04 AM |
|
Joined: May 22, 2012
Posts: 63
|
|
But, do you think that scenario fit in this MCU?
This MCU is for router and end devices, for the coordinator we are thinking in a bigger one with more memory, ATmega256RF or another microcontroller with transceiver. For this reason we have to calculate the size of the requiered memory by the stack and the profile, in order to manage the largest number of nodes.
I feel that you are not agree with this approach, but I dont know if I have another option.
I am very grateful for your help and I take into account all of your suggestions.
Thank you very much |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2012 - 10:17 PM |
|
Joined: Apr 15, 2009
Posts: 4870
Location: San Jose, CA
|
|
| Ok. This is good. You should be able to fit your application into mega128rfa1. Default HA application takes about 12 kB, so you have plenty of space left. I'd be more concerned with Flash size. |
_________________
The opinions and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else that I’m affiliated with.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 17, 2012 - 07:58 AM |
|
Joined: May 22, 2012
Posts: 63
|
|
Hello again,
Code:
If you don't absolutely have to use HA, then DON'T. I can't stress this enough. It is a nightmare to work with, with a little added benefit if you don't ever plan to interoperate with other vendors.
When you say "It is a nightmare to work with", do you refer during the developing of a home automation compliant code or when you are using it?
If I try to implement this kind of solution and after do that, there are problems in the joining and binding process or lost of communication or something like that, then perhaps the effort is not worth.
What do you think?
Best regards |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Jul 17, 2012 - 04:59 PM |
|
Joined: Apr 15, 2009
Posts: 4870
Location: San Jose, CA
|
|
| During the development. There are no problems as such, but it is just a lot of work to make sure that all your stuff is compliant. |
_________________
The opinions and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else that I’m affiliated with.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Maximize
RSS
