Home› AMX User Forum› AMXForums Archive Threads› AMX Hardware

Using Netlinx Controller as a Slave

TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Posts: 1,485
in AMX Hardware
Greetings,

Haven't done much of this... I would like to use an NI-2000 for more ports on an existing system. I am assuming that I would set the slave's device number to 5002, as the ports on the system master are 5001. The IP address of the slave would go in the URL list of the master.

Anything else?

Thanks.

Comments

  • Jimweir192Jimweir192 Posts: 502
    M2M - Easy

    It's much easier than that, just use Master to Master and give each Master a unique system number (ie 1 & 2) and a unique IP Address

    You then just add the 2nd Masters IP to the URL List on the 1st Master.

    In your code (on either master), just define your devices as normal, but using the relevant system number. ie
    //Define Device Master 1 (system 1)
dvDev1 = 5001:1:1  //RS232 Port #1 on Master 1
dvDev2 = 5001:1:2 // RS232 Port #1 on Master 2

    The ports on Master 2 are then available for use in code on Master 1.
  • ScottpulmanScottpulman Posts: 48
    Couldn't you just use Master to Master instead of dealing with attempting to slave them together? Define the 5002 in the main master, and link the 2 of them via the URL list. I've done this a quite a few times and it works great, with the added benefit of just using one ethernet cable.
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Posts: 1,485
    Jimweir192 wrote: »
    //Define Device Master 1 (system 1)
dvDev1 = 5001:1:1  //RS232 Port #1 on Master 1
dvDev2 = 5001:1:2 // RS232 Port #1 on Master 2

    Would this be OK? (referencing the master controller as system 0) 
    //Define Device Master 1 (system 1)
dvDev1 = 5001:1:0  //RS232 Port #1 on Master 1
dvDev2 = 5001:1:2 // RS232 Port #1 on Master 2

    Thanks.
  • Jimweir192Jimweir192 Posts: 502
    Scottpulman wrote: »
    attempting to slave them together

    There is no way to slave them, not like the old Accent3 that you can place on the AXlink bus as a slave
    device. The is no way to disable the Master in an NIxxxx box.

    M2M is the only way to do this.
  • Jimweir192Jimweir192 Posts: 502
    TurnipTruck wrote: »
    Would this be OK? (referencing the master controller as system 0)

    You could, 0 just means this master, for clarity I would use the actual system number for the master, so 1 in this case.
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Posts: 4,584
    I just did a job that had several NI-900's in remote rooms just for the RS-232 and IR ports, to control the TV and local BluRay. It was actually cheaper to do that than purchase a COM2 and IRS4 for those locations.
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Posts: 1,485
    DHawthorne wrote: »
    I just did a job that had several NI-900's in remote rooms just for the RS-232 and IR ports, to control the TV and local BluRay. It was actually cheaper to do that than purchase a COM2 and IRS4 for those locations.

    That's the story here.
  • PhreaKPhreaK Posts: 966
    If you're going to go with multiple mini masters as control head ends I'd recommend abstracting any of your control of their attached devices so that they can handle all the device buffering and string parsing locally then just deal with virtuals (passed via M2M) on you 'master master'.

    If you're just using them as serial device servers save yourself some cash and use any of the many serial to IP bridges available.
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Posts: 4,584
    PhreaK wrote: »
    If you're going to go with multiple mini masters as control head ends I'd recommend abstracting any of your control of their attached devices so that they can handle all the device buffering and string parsing locally then just deal with virtuals (passed via M2M) on you 'master master'.

    If you're just using them as serial device servers save yourself some cash and use any of the many serial to IP bridges available.

    I've had mixed results with serial-IP bridges, and at least one that had a tendency to lock up my master while it hung establishing a connection. Besides, I needed IR as well. There is also a limit to how many IP connections a master can make, and though it's pretty high and unlikely you are going to hit it, I would rather not used one up where it can be avoided.

    Sometimes, it pays to spend a little more for reliability, and M-M communications in NetLinx masters is pretty solid, with no setup hoops to jump through.
  • Jorde_VJorde_V Posts: 393
    DHawthorne wrote: »
    I've had mixed results with serial-IP bridges, and at least one that had a tendency to lock up my master while it hung establishing a connection. Besides, I needed IR as well. There is also a limit to how many IP connections a master can make, and though it's pretty high and unlikely you are going to hit it, I would rather not used one up where it can be avoided.

    Sometimes, it pays to spend a little more for reliability, and M-M communications in NetLinx masters is pretty solid, with no setup hoops to jump through.

    Global Cache works rather well. Unfortunately you can't diagnose IP connections using AMX. (GC-100 has IR and RS-232)

    Am I the only one who finds it peculiar that the NXI is more expensive than the smaller masters?
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Posts: 1,485
    Scottpulman wrote: »
    Couldn't you just use Master to Master instead of dealing with attempting to slave them together? Define the 5002 in the main master, and link the 2 of them via the URL list. I've done this a quite a few times and it works great, with the added benefit of just using one ethernet cable.

    Must any code be loaded on to the "slave" system?

    Definitions of its local devices?
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Posts: 1,485
    Tech note 665 seems to state that the devices of the remote system only need to be defined in the local system. Further TN919 states that in cases where one is only adding ports, an empty .tkn file should be loaded. The above describes my situation.
  • felixmoldovanfelixmoldovan Posts: 197
    {edited}
    I was just revising my reply. For everybody's understanding I have stated that devices should be defined onto the "slave" according to the above tech notes.
    ---
    I tend to observe it might be just a habbit or a code of good practices to do so. However, I have defined the IR devices onto the "slave" machine even if it was a port extension only, for the sake of having a consistent tree view of the in the workspace and quick uploading by mapping the IR files accordingly.
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Posts: 4,584
    In my job using NI-900s for IR and serial ports, there is no code whatsoever on them, and the ports are not defined on them locally at all. The ports are defined in my main master only. All I did with the NI-900's was give them a static IP, set the system numbers, and put the main master in their URL list. They are working flawlessly with that setup. If my main system was busier (it's not doing much most of them time, so I have no processor load to speak of), I would consider offloading the device modules for the serial ports to the local NI-900s, but it hasn't been necessary.
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Posts: 1,485
    No code on my slave device. IP of master in slave's URL list. Uploaded IR files in the workspace of the master device. Working like a champ.

    Thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.