Should I Swap My PLM?

[upstatemike]

Yes I will still do that on the weekend but I was hoping for a rapid fix. I can't spend any extended time on this during the week and did not want to delay a possible solution if I could just swap the unit.

 

On Saturday i will remove the test switch from ISY, factory reset the old PLM (which is the one we want to do this test on anyway) and then add the test switch back to ISY with the empty PLM to see if it works correctly.

 

upstatemike,

 

I thought we were going to test this BEFORE restoring the PLM. The main reason was to see whether or not the number of links in the PLM have any impact. Would you be kind enough to factory reset your OLD PLM, reboot your ISY with the old plm, link the switch into it, and let me know?

 

With kind regards,

Michel

 

My new PLM came sooner than expected. It is a rev. 2.9 and ISY reports the firmware as v72. I did a replace modem and then tested the basement stair switch. It still does not report local operation. I then tested the brand new switch that I have plugged directly into the PLM. It reported the first paddle press and then nothing after that. I guess it is not a PLM problem.

[Michel Kohanim]

Hello upstatemike,

 

Something very curious and coincidental. I just had a customer with the same exact issue. I had him count the links in the PLM and it was 416; we added more scenes (and devices in the scenes) but the number of links did NOT change. The scary part is that this was PLM 63 which was supposed to have the extended memory but it did not (or it didn't know that it did). So, at the moment, your theory seems to be very plausible.

 

With kind regards,

Michel

 

Yes I will still do that on the weekend but I was hoping for a rapid fix. I can't spend any extended time on this during the week and did not want to delay a possible solution if I could just swap the unit.

 

On Saturday i will remove the test switch from ISY, factory reset the old PLM (which is the one we want to do this test on anyway) and then add the test switch back to ISY with the empty PLM to see if it works correctly.

 

upstatemike,

 

I thought we were going to test this BEFORE restoring the PLM. The main reason was to see whether or not the number of links in the PLM have any impact. Would you be kind enough to factory reset your OLD PLM, reboot your ISY with the old plm, link the switch into it, and let me know?

 

With kind regards,

Michel

 

My new PLM came sooner than expected. It is a rev. 2.9 and ISY reports the firmware as v72. I did a replace modem and then tested the basement stair switch. It still does not report local operation. I then tested the brand new switch that I have plugged directly into the PLM. It reported the first paddle press and then nothing after that. I guess it is not a PLM problem.

[upstatemike]

Update-

 

I removed the new test switch from the ISY and then shut the ISY down. I did a factory reset on my old PLM and brought the ISY back up with that. I then added the test switch back into the ISY so that the only link in the PLM was for that one switch.

 

The ISY now tracks local control for that switch perfectly. I even operated it on and off relatively quickly and it never missed a single change.

[Sub-Routine]

So it could be that you have reached the link limit. And the new PLM is no better.

Sigh.

 

If you remove from the link base a switch known to work and add the test switch I wonder if the new link would function reliably. That should prove the data base in the PLM is full.

 

BTW, I'm working hard making new scenes; I'm up to 377 links. v.72 PLM.

 

Rand

[upstatemike]

I do not think this proves that I have reached a link limit. It only shows that links in higher memory locations are not registering properly. The cause could still be:

 

1- The PLM really is hitting a link limit. (Unlikely since the links are visible when you view the PLM link table).

 

2- The PLM does not pass information about local activation for links in higher memory locations. (Unlikely because other operations such as link creation, query, etc all work fine.)

 

3- The PLM transmits local activation messages for links in upper memory locations in an unexpcted format that ISY does not recognize. This seems most likely and would exactly fit all of the symptoms. There could be some header or attribute in the message syntax that is different for higher memory locations. ISY would simply ignore these "invalid" local activation messages.

[Michel Kohanim]

upstatemike,

 

Thanks so very much for the update. This is very good!

 

As far as your 3rd assumption, and in the original setup, were you getting [uNKNOWN] m n where m and n are numbers? If so, then you are 100% correct. If not, then I would think it's #2.

 

I am going to forward this thread to SH.

 

Thanks again so very much,

 

With kind regards,

Michel

 

I do not think this proves that I have reached a link limit. It only shows that links in higher memory locations are not registering properly. The cause could still be:

 

1- The PLM really is hitting a link limit. (Unlikely since the links are visible when you view the PLM link table).

 

2- The PLM does not pass information about local activation for links in higher memory locations. (Unlikely because other operations such as link creation, query, etc all work fine.)

 

3- The PLM transmits local activation messages for links in upper memory locations in an unexpcted format that ISY does not recognize. This seems most likely and would exactly fit all of the symptoms. There could be some header or attribute in the message syntax that is different for higher memory locations. ISY would simply ignore these "invalid" local activation messages.

[upstatemike]

So I assume there is no chance of a solution in the near future? If Smarthome has to find the problem, create a firmware fix, apply it to current PLM stock, and then I would have to go through another exchange cycle... maybe 60 days?

 

I suppose I can delete all of my devices that do not participate in scenes and then restore the PLM so that everything that remains hopefully ends up in a low enough point in the PLM link table to work correctly.

 

***edit***

 

I just checked and I only see 1 switch that is not in a scene so I guess that idea is not going to work.

[IndyMike]

Upstate,

 

Another possible solution would be to change the controllers in your large scenes to responders and then use program control to activate the scene ( If Control XX is switched on/off then turn scene on/off). Adding a controller to a scene greatly increases the number of links (doubles??). A side benefit is these scenes are far easier (more reliable) for the PLM to program.

 

Edit - Sorry, I had things backward. Adding a controller will only add 1 additional link to the PLM. It adds 1 link to each of the members of the scene (that's where I was getting the 2x links from).

 

I'm not sure how feasible this is for your installation. You've got a long way to go to reduce down to 416 links...

 

So I assume there is no chance of a solution in the near future? If Smarthome has to find the problem, create a firmware fix, apply it to current PLM stock, and then I would have to go through another exchange cycle... maybe 60 days?

 

I suppose I can delete all of my devices that do not participate in scenes and then restore the PLM so that everything that remains hopefully ends up in a low enough point in the PLM link table to work correctly.

 

***edit***

 

I just checked and I only see 1 switch that is not in a scene so I guess that idea is not going to work.

[Michel Kohanim]

Hello upstatemike,

 

SH has been quite responsive to the issues as we have reported them. As such, they have an updated PLM that, if you don't mind, I would like you to test. If so, please forward me your address to tech@universal-devices.com.

 

With kind regards,

Michel

 

 

So I assume there is no chance of a solution in the near future? If Smarthome has to find the problem, create a firmware fix, apply it to current PLM stock, and then I would have to go through another exchange cycle... maybe 60 days?

 

I suppose I can delete all of my devices that do not participate in scenes and then restore the PLM so that everything that remains hopefully ends up in a low enough point in the PLM link table to work correctly.

 

***edit***

 

I just checked and I only see 1 switch that is not in a scene so I guess that idea is not going to work.

[upstatemike]

I'm afraid the new PLM did not resolve anything.

[MikeB]

Hey Mike -

 

I think I asked you this before, but I just wanted to double-check. Do you have any devices that report their statuses to the ISY intermittently?

 

If so, when they do not report their status, is there ANY traffic at all in the Event Viewer when you press the switch?

[upstatemike]

Hey Mike -

 

I think I asked you this before, but I just wanted to double-check. Do you have any devices that report their statuses to the ISY intermittently?

 

If so, when they do not report their status, is there ANY traffic at all in the Event Viewer when you press the switch?

 

No, there is nothing at all in the Event Viewer. I can see the traffic generated in the flashing LEDs of other Insteon devices repeating the signal but there is NO entry in the Event Viewer at all. It seems that the PLM simply does not pass anything on to the ISY.

[Michel Kohanim]

Hello upstatemike,

 

I tested the same PLM version and it's working fine here. Of course, I don't have as many devices as you do. What I did, though, was to add more tracing and debugging in the hope that we can find something. We should have a build soon.

 

With kind regards,

Michel

 

Hey Mike -

 

I think I asked you this before, but I just wanted to double-check. Do you have any devices that report their statuses to the ISY intermittently?

 

If so, when they do not report their status, is there ANY traffic at all in the Event Viewer when you press the switch?

 

No, there is nothing at all in the Event Viewer. I can see the traffic generated in the flashing LEDs of other Insteon devices repeating the signal but there is NO entry in the Event Viewer at all. It seems that the PLM simply does not pass anything on to the ISY.

[upstatemike]

I would like to suggest another approach as a workaround until SH is able to reproduce the problem. If the Restore Modem routine was changed so that after restoring RemoteLinc and Motion Sensor links it then added the remaining devies to the PLM link table alphabetically by name instead of sorted by Insteon address, this would help in the short term. Those of us with many devices could simply rename those switches that are a priority for us with a leading "A" or "0" and then restore the modem so that they end up in the lower part of the PLM link table. This would also be useful in troubleshooting since we could easily demonstrate how the same switch acts differently depending on where it is in the table. I don't think there is any negative impact to other folks with smaller link counts and the code could always revert back to the old sort method at some future time when the PLM firmware has been fixed.

 

Would something like this be possible?

[Michel Kohanim]

Hello upstatemike,

 

Excellent idea. Let me do some digging in the code ... although possible, I think this code is at the heart of link management and thus changing it will require a complete regression testing. The outcome, even more delays on releasing 2.7. I shall keep you posted though.

 

With kind regards,

Michel

 

I would like to suggest another approach as a workaround until SH is able to reproduce the problem. If the Restore Modem routine was changed so that after restoring RemoteLinc and Motion Sensor links it then added the remaining devies to the PLM link table alphabetically by name instead of sorted by Insteon address, this would help in the short term. Those of us with many devices could simply rename those switches that are a priority for us with a leading "A" or "0" and then restore the modem so that they end up in the lower part of the PLM link table. This would also be useful in troubleshooting since we could easily demonstrate how the same switch acts differently depending on where it is in the table. I don't think there is any negative impact to other folks with smaller link counts and the code could always revert back to the old sort method at some future time when the PLM firmware has been fixed.

 

Would something like this be possible?