ISY994/Zwave - reliability issues and healing

[scubaguyjohn]

30 device zwave network (along with 60 device insteon network) controlled by ISY994.  I have repeated communication issues with the zwave devices.  I have a few questions i'd appreciate help with:

 

1.  Does it matter if the zwave device is included into the network next to the ISY versus "in place".  Example, I have some humidity sensors installed under the house.  I include them into the network in the house then place them in their under house locations once I know they are communicating with ISY.  Experience seems to indicate it does indeed make a difference where the device is initially included vs installed and reliability is not improved with many heals.  Does it matter where the device is physically located when included?

 

2.  The heal process is a pain because it has to be manually done.  It would be great to have a heal command that could be integrated into a program and then run several times during the night.  Is this possible? or could it be added as a ISY feature?

 

3.  Is the heal process smart enough to try different communication routes if one route is "weak"?  This question relates to issue 1 in that I wonder if the communications level between devices is below a certain threshold, does  the network look for a stronger signal.  Or is it just binary:  the device communicates or it doesn't?

 

4.  Lastly, I have the external antenna installed on ISY.  I've read its signal is much more on a horizontal plane than the internal antenna.  Can someone quantify how much more powerful distance wise the external antenna is vs the internal antenna?  Can ISY be installed in a wood cabinet or does it lose a lot of communications distance vs being installed on top of that cabinet?

 

thanks for your help, John.

[Teken]

30 device zwave network (along with 60 device insteon network) controlled by ISY994.  I have repeated communication issues with the zwave devices.  I have a few questions i'd appreciate help with:

 

1.  Does it matter if the zwave device is included into the network next to the ISY versus "in place".  Example, I have some humidity sensors installed under the house.  I include them into the network in the house then place them in their under house locations once I know they are communicating with ISY.  Experience seems to indicate it does indeed make a difference where the device is initially included vs installed and reliability is not improved with many heals.  Does it matter where the device is physically located when included? <--Technically secure devices need to be included close to the controller due to security limitations etc. The device should be *In place* and then the annoying heal process completed so it can determine the next closest responder / repeater device. This is just another example of why Insteon is better when compared to Z-Wave as all devices which are dual band act as repeaters and send the signal to ensure a strong Insteon mesh network.

 

Using routing limits the amount of choices and devices in the system even if marginal to allow the signal to propagate. 

 

2.  The heal process is a pain because it has to be manually done.  It would be great to have a heal command that could be integrated into a program and then run several times during the night.  Is this possible? or could it be added as a ISY feature? <-- Awesome idea and I second it!

 

3.  Is the heal process smart enough to try different communication routes if one route is "weak"?  This question relates to issue 1 in that I wonder if the communications level between devices is below a certain threshold, does  the network look for a stronger signal.  Or is it just binary:  the device communicates or it doesn't? <-- My (limited) understanding of the Z-Wave protocol is its supposed to communicate to the (next) closest responder to continue the mesh network. It does not know if the next device is stronger or weaker only that its there to communicate with. Which can lead to inconsistent performance. 

 

4.  Lastly, I have the external antenna installed on ISY.  I've read its signal is much more on a horizontal plane than the internal antenna.  Can someone quantify how much more powerful distance wise the external antenna is vs the internal antenna?  Can ISY be installed in a wood cabinet or does it lose a lot of communications distance vs being installed on top of that cabinet? <-- The external antenna is more directional and in most scenario's people have seen better over all performance and range just using the internal antenna.

 

This is also why UDI stopped selling the external unit because there was just too much variability in performance. Lastly, anything in the way of obstruction will impact the signal so if you could leave it outside of the cabinet that would be better.

 

thanks for your help, John.

 

 

Answers in line

[MWareman]

 

 

30 device zwave network (along with 60 device insteon network) controlled by ISY994. I have repeated communication issues with the zwave devices. I have a few questions i'd appreciate help with:

 

1. Does it matter if the zwave device is included into the network next to the ISY versus "in place". Example, I have some humidity sensors installed under the house. I include them into the network in the house then place them in their under house locations once I know they are communicating with ISY. Experience seems to indicate it does indeed make a difference where the device is initially included vs installed and reliability is not improved with many heals. Does it matter where the device is physically located when included?

 

2. The heal process is a pain because it has to be manually done. It would be great to have a heal command that could be integrated into a program and then run several times during the night. Is this possible? or could it be added as a ISY feature?

 

3. Is the heal process smart enough to try different communication routes if one route is "weak"? This question relates to issue 1 in that I wonder if the communications level between devices is below a certain threshold, does the network look for a stronger signal. Or is it just binary: the device communicates or it doesn't?

 

4. Lastly, I have the external antenna installed on ISY. I've read its signal is much more on a horizontal plane than the internal antenna. Can someone quantify how much more powerful distance wise the external antenna is vs the internal antenna? Can ISY be installed in a wood cabinet or does it lose a lot of communications distance vs being installed on top of that cabinet?

 

thanks for your help, John.

Here are the two questions I can help with...

 

Including in place means devices build routes correctly. Moving after including means a heal is a requirement. I always try to include in place if possible.

 

In my case, an external antenna made thing *much* worse.

[scubaguyjohn]

thanks for your detailed reply...I'd like to hear from others too on question 1 and 3.

 

As an aside, i'd love to have everything be insteon because it is a far more reliable protocol but...see caveat below.  Unfortunately, I have zwave humidity and temp sensors (I couldn't find insteon) and am stuck using zwave. 

 

Overall, insteon is robust and reliable as a protocol.  HOWEVER, the single source vendor is a major issue and the reason I will never use insteon again.  Smarthome seems to design devices for a 2 year use window.  I've had 8, yes 8, multibutton keypads fail and 2 plm's fail...All told, that's about $1,000 thrown away not to mention countless hours spent debugging.   Smarthome has a monopoly on insteon (from what i can tell) and that leads to a lack of competition with a "closed" standard and higher prices in general.  Once you selecct insteon as your home automation standard, you're stuck.

 

my two cents!  John.

[mwester]

I'll disagree, this time, with Teken.

 

Inherently, the Insteon "mesh" is not better than the z-wave "mesh" -- both have their strengths and their failings.  Insteon, for instance, pays a price for repeating anything and everything in the form of collisions (a certain type of same thought to be at the root of the dreaded All-ON problem).

 

I've selected z-wave for almost all my sensors (I have one Insteon motion sensor), and Insteon for all controls.  Insteon failed to offer an audible alert (the home-made "buzz-linc" device described here fails the WAF test, I'm afraid) - so that too is a z-wave siren.

 

I do have the antenna for the ISY -- and I love it.  In my youth I spent a lot of time with low-power high-frequency HAM radio stuff, though, so I'm very comfortable with antenna radiation patterns.  I'm a bit disappointed that UDI chose to drop the antenna; it's very useful, and not all that difficult to manage it's pattern.   In a nutshell, here's how to visualize how the antenna radiates (and receives):

 

- imagine, first of all, a "point source" (such as the built-in ceramic antenna in many z-wave and similar devices).  The signal transmits, theoretically, equally in all directions.  Therefore, if we map the set of points where the signal strength is "1 something-or-other", that set of points will form a perfect sphere centered on the antenna itself.  This is the classic "omnidirectional" antenna, and is used as the reference against which other antennas are compared.

 

- now consider the typical monopole antenna (the old car radio antenna, a walkie-talkie antenna, and the one that used to be available for the ISY) -- the set of points is very much NOT a sphere.  In a theoretically-perfect example, it's usually supposed to be a donut-like shape, where the antenna would be going through the donut hole.  If you visualize this, you'll see the problem that UDI noted -- the signal spreads out from side-to-side much better than the "point source" antenna, but immediately above or below the signal strength falls off to almost zero.  Thus, the external antenna on the ISY would tend to spread across a house very nicely, but rooms immediately above and below the ISY would suffer.

 

Knowing this about the antenna pattern makes it pretty easy to address.  For me, I simply selected a location where there's nothing above or below the ISY that I need to talk to -- above is a roof, and below is a root cellar.  Taking a best guess on the real-world characteristics of the antenna, I bet that the location would reach the nearest devices on the floor below with about the same signal strength of the original built-in antenna -- but the maximum extent of the "donut" would easily reach the garage at rafter-level, where I have a secure zwave device located.  Since it all works perfectly, I suspect the real-world patterns are close enough!  (Of course, if I ever decide to put a z-wave deadbolt on my root cellar door, I guess I might be in trouble -- but potatoes aren't that valuable...)

 

 

(Edited to add a note about the wood cabinet -- in most cases, wood is "invisible" to 900 MHz signals.  An exception would be if the wood cabinet has a metallic film applied anywhere, including a metal film on any glass shelves or doors such as a coating to cut down on UV damage - that might be a problem.  I put my ISY under the desk to avoid any potential problems, since I have a tinted glass desktop surface and I'm not sure if it's metallized or not...)

 

(Edited again because I realized I failed to attach a reference that shows the pattern for a monopole antenna:  http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/monopole.php )

[stusviews]

I use the external antenna for exactly the reason you describe, that is, horizontal distribution is most important in my situation. Even that is not sufficient. I also employ two Gen 5 repeaters (sirens, actually). Therein is the shortfall of Z-Wave. Z-Wave relies exclusively on RF, which when compared with power line communication, is less reliable and more easily interfered with.

 

In addition, if the source of the RF blockage is identified, a cure is beyond the control of the user.if the source is external to the residence. Power line interference is virtually always within the home and can usually be controlled with a filter.

[Teken]

thanks for your detailed reply...I'd like to hear from others too on question 1 and 3.

 

As an aside, i'd love to have everything be insteon because it is a far more reliable protocol but...see caveat below.  Unfortunately, I have zwave humidity and temp sensors (I couldn't find insteon) and am stuck using zwave. 

 

Overall, insteon is robust and reliable as a protocol.  HOWEVER, the single source vendor is a major issue and the reason I will never use insteon again.  Smarthome seems to design devices for a 2 year use window.  I've had 8, yes 8, multibutton keypads fail and 2 plm's fail...All told, that's about $1,000 thrown away not to mention countless hours spent debugging.   Smarthome has a monopoly on insteon (from what i can tell) and that leads to a lack of competition with a "closed" standard and higher prices in general.  Once you selecct insteon as your home automation standard, you're stuck.

 

my two cents!  John.

 

 

I'll disagree, this time, with Teken.

 

Inherently, the Insteon "mesh" is not better than the z-wave "mesh" -- both have their strengths and their failings.  Insteon, for instance, pays a price for repeating anything and everything in the form of collisions (a certain type of same thought to be at the root of the dreaded All-ON problem).

 

I've selected z-wave for almost all my sensors (I have one Insteon motion sensor), and Insteon for all controls.  Insteon failed to offer an audible alert (the home-made "buzz-linc" device described here fails the WAF test, I'm afraid) - so that too is a z-wave siren.

 

I do have the antenna for the ISY -- and I love it.  In my youth I spent a lot of time with low-power high-frequency HAM radio stuff, though, so I'm very comfortable with antenna radiation patterns.  I'm a bit disappointed that UDI chose to drop the antenna; it's very useful, and not all that difficult to manage it's pattern.   In a nutshell, here's how to visualize how the antenna radiates (and receives):

 

- imagine, first of all, a "point source" (such as the built-in ceramic antenna in many z-wave and similar devices).  The signal transmits, theoretically, equally in all directions.  Therefore, if we map the set of points where the signal strength is "1 something-or-other", that set of points will form a perfect sphere centered on the antenna itself.  This is the classic "omnidirectional" antenna, and is used as the reference against which other antennas are compared.

 

- now consider the typical monopole antenna (the old car radio antenna, a walkie-talkie antenna, and the one that used to be available for the ISY) -- the set of points is very much NOT a sphere.  In a theoretically-perfect example, it's usually supposed to be a donut-like shape, where the antenna would be going through the donut hole.  If you visualize this, you'll see the problem that UDI noted -- the signal spreads out from side-to-side much better than the "point source" antenna, but immediately above or below the signal strength falls off to almost zero.  Thus, the external antenna on the ISY would tend to spread across a house very nicely, but rooms immediately above and below the ISY would suffer.

 

Knowing this about the antenna pattern makes it pretty easy to address.  For me, I simply selected a location where there's nothing above or below the ISY that I need to talk to -- above is a roof, and below is a root cellar.  Taking a best guess on the real-world characteristics of the antenna, I bet that the location would reach the nearest devices on the floor below with about the same signal strength of the original built-in antenna -- but the maximum extent of the "donut" would easily reach the garage at rafter-level, where I have a secure zwave device located.  Since it all works perfectly, I suspect the real-world patterns are close enough!  (Of course, if I ever decide to put a z-wave deadbolt on my root cellar door, I guess I might be in trouble -- but potatoes aren't that valuable...)

 

 

(Edited to add a note about the wood cabinet -- in most cases, wood is "invisible" to 900 MHz signals.  An exception would be if the wood cabinet has a metallic film applied anywhere, including a metal film on any glass shelves or doors such as a coating to cut down on UV damage - that might be a problem.  I put my ISY under the desk to avoid any potential problems, since I have a tinted glass desktop surface and I'm not sure if it's metallized or not...)

 

(Edited again because I realized I failed to attach a reference that shows the pattern for a monopole antenna:  http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/monopole.php )

 

Lots of god points made above here but would like to clarify a few points for the benefit of the forum members. I absolutely concede having a single source vendor is irritating and limits pricing and has the potential for a complete loss of the system should they ever go under.

 

But given the fact Smarthome / Smartlabs has been in the game for more than ten years this at least on the surface shows commitment to the product. They have also been the most consistent HA vendor in producing and releasing new products to the world.

 

They have also been one of the few vendors who have actually taken ideas from the *Wish List* and incorporated or released new hardware based on those suggestions and ideas.

 

I've not seen any other vendor whether you call out ZigBee / Z-Wave do the same. Also given the fact they have slowly expanded their presence in brick and mortar stores like Menard's etc, Costco, etc. This shows a willingness from these companies in seeing the value of carrying said product and the demand is there.

 

With respect to the two companies mesh deployment method from a technical and real world use case. My personal experience and many others is that Insteon leads in this area. Not only is it dual band where power line is present it allows greater distances to be achieved and seen.

 

RF is impacted by physical obstructions, interference, variability of product tolerances, and over all power output. The major difference between the two mesh networks is that all existing Insteon devices will receive a in bound signal and not only relay said message but actually regenerates that signal.

 

Meaning if a signal came from device 1 into device 2 with a weak signal. Device 2 will repeat and relay that message to device 3, 4, 5, etc with 100% signal output over both powerline / RF all in unison. Insteon does not rely on or require a routing to be identified or made nor does it require a heal process to determine the next hop.

 

Insteon uses simulcast vs Z-Waves routed method which limits message (signal) propagation to end devices. Insteon also uses a full mesh vs Z-Waves partial mesh due to the above routing.

 

With respect to the ALL ON / ALL OFF condition the following remarks are mine and mine alone and based on observations and statements from many Insteon users here and related forums.

 

The ALL ON / ALL OFF issue has been seen by a small percentage of users. This problem has not been reported enmass by the general public. There is approx over one million Insteon devices in the field and in use which if we extrapolate in a very small cross section of users impacted by said ALL ON / ALL OFF is less than 100 users.

 

The ALL ON / ALL OFF condition has never been seen in a native environment, never. Meaning if you have installed a Insteon hardware network with no controller this issue has never been seen or publicized in any forum.

 

Next, this issue has never been seen in any other HA controller known to me or others. Whether it be products from Smartlabs, Revolv, Smartinet, Home Seer, or any software based controller system using a 2413S PLM as the interface, ever.

 

Given the above and extremely small user base impacted by this terrible issue its safe to say from my point of view is that its not a wide spread issue. Regardless, this matter needs to be identified and root cause determined so a definitive fix be offered to those impacted by said issue.

 

For those that have not read the mile long thread for the ALL ON / ALL OFF I encourage you all to do so to not only gain insight but also glean some of interim fix's offered by UDI and others. These changes do not in the long run resolve the matter at hand but simply reduces the likely hood of it happening.

 

Some facts that should also be brought to bare so others can fully understand what is happening in this area. As of this writing all Insteon devices made to date have the ALL ON / ALL OFF command protocol removed from the hardware.

 

The current 2413S PLM has also removed the above from its device table. As I stated many times over the years the only tried and true method is to have a Insteon network using the latest devices which are void of any ALL ON / ALL OFF command tables using a 2413S PLM with the same.

 

Once in place a person who has been identified to be impacted consistently with this issue should be used as a test case. At this point its a waiting game to see if the problem continues to exist but also to help narrow down the root cause.

 

In closing I wanted to offer some counter points and clarification on some of the facts I know and wish to share to the forum members. Should there be any mistakes or omissions please do let me know and I shall correct them.

[bgrubb1]

2.  The heal process is a pain because it has to be manually done.  It would be great to have a heal command that could be integrated into a program and then run several times during the night.  Is this possible? or could it be added as a ISY feature? <-- Awesome idea and I second it!​

 

As a former Vera user - if this is ever implemented, please make it on / off selectable

The Vera does this every night at 2am   and it causes more problems than it fixes

 

The current state is you may have a device quit responding. With the Vera, you would wake up and find out NOTHING works because the Heal didn't execute well

..Barry

[Michel Kohanim]

Hello everyone,

 

We have debated supporting automatic healing and finally we decided not to:

1. First and foremost, the routing algorithms in devices must be sufficient UNLESS you physically move a device to a different location which might require updated routing tables. Or, if you put some huge metal sheath somewhere which breaks the routing optimizations. In both of those cases, we assume that you will see reliability issues for just a select few devices and not all. In that case manual makes much more sense

2. Depending on the size of installation - as I am sure you have seen - it might take hours to heal the network during which time Z-Wave will be disabled. This is not very reliable and it causes more problems than it solves

 

With kind regards,

Michel

[lilyoyo1]

There is no perfect way devices to communicate. Knowing how each protocol communicates and those limitations allows for you to plan accordingly. With that said, I agree with Teken and much prefer the Insteon method over Zwave. While collisions are possible the likely hood of that happening is small. If something is automated you can program around that. For example, none of my programs run on the dot. (ie: 9,930,945 etc). I will do 9:31:17. That lessens the chance that I will do something at the exact moment and if I write a program a year from now, I don't necessarily need to watch the time. 

 

With routed messaging, it works well. However let 1 device die and you don't realize it at the time. If a light doesn't turn off, you can live with that. However if it means your door is left unlocked, that can be a biggie. (assuming the pathway is essential to communicate with the lock). 

 

I use the internal zwave antenna. However I also have a plug in module about 6 feet from my ISY to start my signal repeating. Early on (at least for me) Insteon seemed to have better range. Though I have a couple of gen 5 I have not tested the range to see how much improvement has been made though I hear from some people it's much better. 

 

I love being able to use Insteon and Zwave. For things that I do not like with Insteon or thats missing with Insteon, Zwave allows me to fill in with those devices and vice versa.