wwat Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Hi, Just thinking ahead a little when i2 gets up and running. Will all the i1 (only) devices be capable of repeating the i2 instructions? Isn't one of the main features of Insteon it's mesh network where all devices repeat information to build the network. Otherwise it means more accesspoints which is going to be rather ugly and more expensive. Regards, Wayne Link to comment
gregoryx Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Two things from what I think I heard: the current devices repeat i2; at some point, APs may not be the only way to get RF repeaters (think Appliance Linc, Lamp Link, PLM, etc). No plans, just that it makes sense, I guess. Link to comment
dss Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Hi, Just thinking ahead a little when i2 gets up and running. Will all the i1 (only) devices be capable of repeating the i2 instructions? Isn't one of the main features of Insteon it's mesh network where all devices repeat information to build the network. Otherwise it means more accesspoints which is going to be rather ugly and more expensive. Regards, Wayne I was thinking that even if i1 devices don't repeat i2 instructions I would think that after putting in a few i2 devices that do repeat i2 instructions there wouldn't be a problem but I guess we won't know for sure until some diagnostic features become available either on the ISY or HouseLinc. I am just speculating this based on the observation that when Insteon first came out it didn't take very many devices to get pretty good signal throughout a 5000 SF house. I would think if you had like 60 devices all repeating it is probably overkill. That if you just added just a few i2 devices it would get strong enough even without the other 60 i1 devices repeating and it isn't necessary to go tear out and replace all 60 i1 devices. As I said, I'm just speculating based on experience when I first started putting in Insteon devices. Link to comment
wwat Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 I have had confirmation from Smarthomes that i1(only) devices will repeat i2 information throughout the network. (i.e Customers will not be required to purchase some new infrustructure in the future just to get their new i2 products to work on existing networks.) Edit: The above refers to standard messages. Extended messages (for programming of devices) can only be repeated by i2 enabled devices. I was thinking that even if i1 devices don't repeat i2 instructions I would think that after putting in a few i2 devices that do repeat i2 instructions there wouldn't be a problem but I guess we won't know for sure until some diagnostic features become available either on the ISY or HouseLinc. I am just speculating this based on the observation that when Insteon first came out it didn't take very many devices to get pretty good signal throughout a 5000 SF house. I would think if you had like 60 devices all repeating it is probably overkill. That if you just added just a few i2 devices it would get strong enough even without the other 60 i1 devices repeating and it isn't necessary to go tear out and replace all 60 i1 devices. As I said, I'm just speculating based on experience when I first started putting in Insteon devices. Link to comment
dss Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I have had confirmation from Smarthomes that i1(only) devices will repeat i2 information throughout the network. (i.e Customers will not be required to purchase some new infrustructure in the future just to get their new i2 products to work on existing networks.) Wasn't the problem with i2 messages in version 2.6.13 because i2 messages weren't getting through networks that were mostly non-repeating i1 devices causing corrupted memory? Link to comment
IndyMike Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 dss, I believe the repeating problem was something that we theorized awhile back. Unfortunately the nature of forums is that information is often taken out of context, repeated, and misquoted and before long becomes fact. I've been searching and have not been able to locate where a SH or UDI representative has stated that I2 messages are not repeated by I1 devices. GregoryX quoted Steve Lee as saying that the I2 communication might be more sensitive to noise: http://www.forum.universal-devices.com/viewtopic.php?p=16776#16776. This is not at all the same as saying that I1 devices won't repeat I2 commands. Another questionable conclusion has been made regarding "corrupted" link tables and I2 CRC. From what I've seen, corrupted link tables are comprised of duplicate entries or entries for groups that are no longer reflected by the ISY. I haven't seen a post indicating "garbage" data in a link table (invalid format). If you look at the old I1 peek/poke method of programming you can see that the ISY was in total control of the process. Each of the 8 locations in the link table was individually peek/poked until the entry was completed. Each communication is sent with a max HOPs of 3 and retry logic is applied. In short, there is a lot of handshaking going on with a simple 8 byte programming sequence. If/when problems occurred the ISY could recognize them and recover. As I understand the I2 programming sequence, the switch is an active part of the programming. The entire 8 byte link record is written in one fell swoop. Note: the following is pure speculation. What I do not know is how the switch responds to a "completed" sequence. If the PLM/ISY for some reason can't hear the switch indicating a ""link record complete" transmission, it's possible the ISY will retry and thereby create a duplicate record. The ISY and switch are now out of synch. At present I don't have any devices that the ISY recognizes as I2 programmable (2 units on the way). If someone can provide the Hop count used during I2 programming acknowledge I'd be very interested. As of Version 2.6.14 UDI has given use the ability to easily monitor Max Hops and Hops remaining using Mode 3 in the Event Viewer. IM Wasn't the problem with i2 messages in version 2.6.13 because i2 messages weren't getting through networks that were mostly non-repeating i1 devices causing corrupted memory? Link to comment
wwat Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 Unfortunately the nature of forums is that information is often taken out of context, repeated, and misquoted and before long becomes fact. Yes exactly... However, we still dont know what the problem was. Link to comment
dss Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yes exactly... However, we still dont know what the problem was. Yes, so exactly what do we know that is confirmed? That if you try to program devices with i2 commands it sometimes doesn't work. Is that about it? Link to comment
Michel Kohanim Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Hello IndyMike, You are right on. One comment though: Even if ISY tries to create a duplicate record, the device's firmware stops (or used to stop) it. The main problem is not writing. The main problem is reading: in order to write a record, we first have to read it, modify its contents, and write it back. In numerous occasions, some of the newer devices do NOT send the correct record (for some unknown reason) and thus the corruption. You can test this theory by doing a Device Link table on an i2 device. But, again - and as you suggested - I am not sure what the underlying cause is; I just know the symptoms. With kind regards, Michel Link to comment
IndyMike Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Michel, Thank you for the reply. I hadn't thought of the switch itself transmitting an incorrect record. I can see how that would throw a wrench in the link table. Since not all users are experiencing problems, I'm making the rash assumption that this is influenced by the powerline environment. I had planned on trying some tests varying noise/signal absorption (therapy work). Your new tools in the event viewer will come in handy - I had been exporting the records to excel to compare the link lists and calculate "Hops remaining". Thank you very much for this addition. IM Link to comment
gregoryx Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 ...I had planned on trying some tests varying noise/signal absorption (therapy work).... That's what SteveL said he'd done and had concluded that it was noise / signal absorption and was cured with APs and/or more devices or different placements. It'd be interesting to see what your therapy concludes. Link to comment
dss Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 QUOTE (SteveL @ Feb 4 2009, 05:03 PM) There would not be any difference if i was using the ISY to program 3 switches in a house that only had three switches. The same logic would say that you could not program a house with just one switch that is i1. That is not the case, most houses work fine whether you have 2 or 20 devices. In the cases where there is a signal issue there are tools to help those installations like access points. The only issue here is a small amount of time that will be shaved off the programming when using i2. Digger Ok so you are saying that you cannot use I2 to program the switches in cases where you can not get to the I2 switch from the PLM without going through an I1 device? But if you wanted to you could put a accesspoint into that branch circuit to program it and then take it out for normal use? SteveL You got it. And it is always a best practice to put an access point at the PLM also. That has been part of my standard install process from day one, it just made sense. http://www.cocoontech.com/index.php?sho ... 2515&st=15 I think the above exchange on cocoontech confirms my impression of what is going on. i1 devices repeat standard messages but not extended messages. If you have a device that cannot be reached by the ISY except via an intermediate i1 device it can receive standard messages but extended messages may not get through. However this to me this would only be an issue if you just started deploying i2 devices and perhaps only one or two i2 devices in a home that had isolated circuits. Most homes probably do fine without the repeating just with 2 access points., after you had 3 - 5 i2 devices repeating the extended messages there probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Just like when you installed the first 3-5 i1 devices the signal pretty much propagated everywhere. I think those calling for a complete replacement of i1 devices have to realize the company has to stay viable. In this economy with companies dropping out left and right it does us no good if Insteon becomes orphaned. If you're having problems then add a few Access Points, buy them along with a keypad dimmer starter kit and it ends up costing $18 for a pair. Smarthome has extended the warranty on Switchlincs for the microswitch issue, if you replace a few of those you'll have a few more i2 devices. But I would rather see Smarthome spend it's money on maintaining itself as a viable company and coming out with new devices and improving QA. Link to comment
wwat Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 But I would rather see Smarthome spend it's money on maintaining itself as a viable company and coming out with new devices and improving QA. I'd like to see more time on QA than new devices personally. I tend to agree, its not a deal breaker for me as long as I know how it works then I can start planning for it. If you are left in the dark about these things then you spend so much time screwing around when its never going to work in the first place. IF this amounts to a break in specification then the problems some of us were experiencing with ISY in ver .14 could be just the beginning, who knows what other problems will arrise. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.