Device Links Tests & Query My Lighting Errors

[Brian H]

I am having a occasional problem that effects both a Query My Lighting and Show Device Links Tables.

Sometimes when I Query My Lighting. The Progress Bar advances but it acts like the modules stop

answering for a few seconds. Sometimes long enough to generate a communications error.

 

Same for Show Device Links Tables. Though when I get a communications error it frequently shows for the one I am

testing and another module not involved with the test.

Like Computer room device link table read.

Failed reading device link

(Bedroon Wall)

[-200000/-5]

Failed reading device link

(Computer Room)

[-200000/-5]

 

I was also seeing in the Event Viewer on Device Communications Events. ERX Extended Messages occasionally.

From all original ApplianceLincs rev 1.3, fw .28

 

This has been with more than one ISY99i firmware revision.

Swapping PLMs and Access Points from older to latest just purchased ones.

No Access Points or normally two installed ones.

[ELA]

Hi Brian,

 

I am curious, will you please clarify your last paragraph remarks?

Are you saying new hardware makes, or does not make, any difference?

 

Do you think something has changed drastically in your system or has it possibly been marginal previously and something has now taken it over the edge?

Have you previously run reliability tests using something like Houselinc?

 

Is the system Pristine if the suspect appliancelincs are disabled?

Are the extended msgs redundant or erroneous?

[Brian H]

The problem is so random. I have not found a exact cause and maybe just chasing an elusive rabbit.

It has never effected my everyday operations and I may just forget all about it.

 

Many times the ERX message didn't even generate a Unexpected Response Message as the standard one was never received as expected.

 

I only have nine ApplianceLincs, two SwitchLinc Relays, a PLM and two Access Points in my whole house.

 

I may get ambitious and put my rev 4.1 AppliancLincs back and see how they work now. Last time they where communicating worse then the old 1.3s.

 

My biggest concern is why a Show Device Links for one device would generate a Failed Reading Message for both the intended module and one not related to it.

 

No I don't have the present HouseLinc and the older one for the 2414U/S PLCs is most likely useless for that type of test.

 

I have not seen the ERX messages with the latest PLM, Though they may come back.

[ELA]

Hi Brian,

If you feel you can ignore it in terms of normal everyday operations then I agree to ignore it. My experience is that something like that is a problem that will affect operations at some point. May have for a long time but you just did not pay attention to it earlier?

 

I have observed my system perform at what I thought was a high level of reliability (perception wise). Then when I got serious I found that my system was always running much slower than it could.

 

To be serious about many such issues I feel you need to use a program designed for reliability testing. I have the advantage of my tester and others opt to use Houselinc.

 

You may be surprised at what you find if you do elect to investigate further via reliability testing.

[Michel Kohanim]

Hello BrianH,

 

I can answer the question of why you would see two errors instead of one:

ISY maintains the state of the last two errors that happened and shows them simultaneously. You can consider this a UI anomaly that we never fixed.

 

As far as receiving ERX ... that's odd. I am not sure why you would get ERX messages for anything but Motion Sensors and TriggerLincs (and some other devices not enumerated in your list). Are you sure you are using Link Management | Advanced Options | Automatic?

 

With kind regards,

Michel

[Brian H]

Yes I am using Automatic.

 

I have found ERX responses in logs with out the Unexpected Response Meassage. I believe the SRX never was received as expected.

 

Event Viewer Log. Device Communications Events setting:

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:58:08 AM : [0 FB F4 1 ] Using engine version i1 for 'Living Room Fireplace'

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:58:08 AM : [iNST-ACK ] 02 62 00.FB.F4 0F 28 0F 06 SET-MSB(0F)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:58:09 AM : [iNST-SRX ] 02 50 00.FB.F4 14.82.98 27 28 0F SET-MSB(0F)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:58:09 AM : [standard-Direct Ack][00.FB.F4-->ISY/PLM Group=0] Max Hops=3, Hops Left=1

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:58:09 AM : [iNST-ACK ] 02 62 00.FB.F4 0F 2B F8 06 PEEK (F8)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:58:09 AM : [iNST-SRX ] 02 50 00.FB.F4 14.82.98 27 2B A2 PEEK (A2)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:58:09 AM : [standard-Direct Ack][00.FB.F4-->ISY/PLM Group=0] Max Hops=3, Hops Left=1

 

Removed log entries not effected. To shorten the post lenght:

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:48 AM : [iNST-ACK ] 02 62 00.FB.F4 0F 2B BF 06 PEEK (BF)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:48 AM : [iNST-ERX ] 02 51 00 FB F4 14 82 98 3B 2B FF 71 56 D0 D5 4A 79 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:48 AM : [standard-Direct Ack][00.FB.F4-->ISY/PLM Group=0] Max Hops=3, Hops Left=2

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:48 AM : [standard Msg. Handler] Unexpected Response: ignored

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:57 AM : [iNST-ACK ] 02 62 00.FB.F4 0F 28 0F 06 SET-MSB(0F)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:58 AM : [iNST-SRX ] 02 50 00.FB.F4 14.82.98 27 28 0F SET-MSB(0F)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:58 AM : [standard-Direct Ack][00.FB.F4-->ISY/PLM Group=0] Max Hops=3, Hops Left=1

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:58 AM : [iNST-ACK ] 02 62 00.FB.F4 0F 2B BF 06 PEEK (BF)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:58 AM : [iNST-SRX ] 02 50 00.FB.F4 14.82.98 27 2B 00 PEEK (00)

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:58 AM : [standard-Direct Ack][00.FB.F4-->ISY/PLM Group=0] Max Hops=3, Hops Left=1

 

Sat 11/19/2011 08:59:58 AM : [All ] Writing 0 bytes to devices

[Brian H]

ELA; I have not abandoned my tests.

I just try things as they come to mind.

Like my XTB-IIR X10 repeater that can hit the power lines with a greater than 10 volt signal. Is Insteon aware but I tried testing with it off. Access Points Removed with and with out a passive coupler between the phases and the XTB-IIR disconnected.

 

Only thing I have noticed so far. Since I replaced my 2413S V1.0, fw v.92 with a V1.5, fw .v98 and my Access Points V1.6 with V2.5. I have not seen any ERX entries in the log. Though the messages still stop sometimes for a few seconds before resuming.

[ELA]

Brian,

Note in your logs how it is using 2 hops to communicate ( 3max ,1 left).

 

Can you compare to when you use the new components? I am curious if it becomes 3:2 or remains 3:1 ?

 

I ask because I did a lot of investigations in this area. I saw the worst msg corruptions / extraneous msgs when the hops count required was greater than 1.

It is my opinion that some devices "try too hard", overreaching into the noise floor and pick up invalid messages (for some reason the CRC is not enough?). They then react to these corrupted msgs. They can then send mistaken ext msgs responses.

 

If the communications is good enough, such that only the initial send (or the first hop) can be well read, then things improve greatly.

 

Thus ... if your communications are improved is that a result of better communications protocol implementations (hop participation) or a marginal change in signal strength levels (due to new hardware components) ? Now that we have to know. If things get better that will be great either way.

 

Best of luck. May I ask how close is your ISY connected PLM to the service cabinet?

[Brian H]

ISY99i with 2413S PLM is at the other end of the house, from the breaker panel. On a separate circuit only running to the room with the computer in it and the master bed room. Where my Mother use to have a high wattage heater. One of the Access points is in the GFCI outlet of that room. Now that I think about it. The Access Point is on the GFCI Outlet as it is feed from my computer area that is not on the GFCI.

 

PLM is in the pass through AC outlet of a 10 amp FilterLinc. Filtered outlet to the APC BX1000 UPS running all the electronics except the 5 volt supply for the ISY99i. Figured if the AC goes off to the PLM may as well loose power to the ISY99i. So they can reestablish communications at restoration of power.

[ELA]

Brian,

How long would you say the cable (romex) length is from the service cabinet to the PLM?

 

Do you have access to an Oscilloscope? Or maybe with the X-10 signal level device you own, have you measured the signal strength at the PLM and compared that to what the level is at the service cabinet?

 

I believe that in many ISY based systems that the reliability can benefit greatly from having the PLM closer to the service cabinet. Especially if problematic devices are on the other phase or on the same phase but a different circuit.

 

I had the benefit of being able to pretest a plm location change (without introducing a long extension cord into the mix) by using my tester.

 

If you can collect some signal level data it will be easy to make the call based on that data.

[Brian H]

Roughly 100 feet from the outlet to the breaker box.

 

I have two scopes. Heathkit's. One low end and the other a dual trace they OEM from somebody.

 

I have an ELK ESM1 and JV Engineering XTBM X10 test meters.

[ELA]

100 ft represents a significant series impedance at 131Khz. If you consider all the "parallel branches" that leave the service cabinet, out to all the Insteon devices in your house, they can add up to a fairly low impedance when compared to that series impedance. The voltage divider involved then greatly reduces the level available at the service cabinet as it now becomes the source, to travel out to all the remote Insteon devices down each branch.

 

I would highly recommend you consider taking the measurements for yourself to see if you do not agree that the move may be worthwhile.

 

In my setup I had about 75ft from the ISY(plm) to the service cabinet. The signal level gain in moving my ISY(plm) to within 15ft of the service cabinet was 20:1 ratio!

All of the reliability testing I did as a follow up also showed the marked improvement.

 

I am not recommending the move as a cure-all by any means. There is even potential for such a move to create new issues.

I am just saying that both theory and my experience have proven it to be a worth while consideration.

If you happen to have a very long ethernet cable you could try it out in advance of any permanent change.