Idratek/IDRANet and Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Paul_B
    Automated Home Legend
    • Jul 2006
    • 608

    #16
    MrFluffy,

    I'm sorry but I can't agree about your view on Microsoft and Windows server. It may have held some validity with desktop OS or Windows NT4 but not with Windows 2003. If the server is used only as a server and not a desktop then their is no reason for it to be unstable / unreliable. This is both my professional view and my own experience running Idratek on a Windows server for almost 2 years.

    Paul

    Comment

    • MrFluffy
      Automated Home Sr Member
      • Aug 2005
      • 79

      #17
      Thank you for your input, however rather than dilute the request, please allow me to rephrase it to that I have a rack full of perfectly good sun and x86 based servers, none of which run windows for my own personal reasons that I do not feel obliged to share more about, all my current hardware infrastructure is set up thus, and if the specs are available I would be interested in making a investment in a Idratek system.

      Comment

      • Gumby
        Moderator
        • May 2004
        • 437

        #18
        You would need to contact Idratek directly to see what they can document for you. They have given me some documents in the past to help with reflex programming.

        Don't under-estimate what you are losing by not running Cortex though. It's a lot more sophisticated than event triggered scripting type stuff.
        ----------------------
        www.gumbrell.com

        Comment

        • JonS
          Automated Home Guru
          • Dec 2007
          • 202

          #19
          My experience of playing with cortex for a few months and having it running 24/7 on a laptop for the last year controlling my house is that running under windows is not a problem. I have had to reboot after windows updates, but I think I have only had to restart windows one other time. I have had to restart Cortex a few times, usually after making some changes / having a play and it probably wasn't essential just cleaner to restart from known back-up. To be honest if you are looking at it from an professional systems engineering view then security is weak compared with reliability. That's security of the product not windows as it cannot run as a background service and if you want it to restart after a reboot you cannot have a pwd on the account.
          I am not a M$ fan-boy and I do not like fiddling with OS (and don't on my laptop, which runs office 03 and is used as kitchen PC and kids use for playing on-line games, so hardly virgin install), but as others have said you'd almost be missing the point of Idratek not to use Cortex.
          Finally on the reliability thread with Reflex you don't need the PC to have 99.999% availability as there is adequate fall-back. To put the reliability in context one of my priority jobs when I commissioned my set-up was to do the Reflex programming, a year later and it is not complete, Cortex on XP just works.
          HTH
          Jon
          Last edited by JonS; 9 September 2008, 11:12 PM. Reason: more thought
          JonS

          Comment

          • Paul_B
            Automated Home Legend
            • Jul 2006
            • 608

            #20
            MrFluffy,

            I didn't mean to get into an OS war either and full understand your wish to stay with *nix. The current Cortex source I believe is written in Delphiand have no idea if this is platform independent.

            The guys at Idratek are incredibly responsive to most requests so drop them a mail and they maybe able to assist.

            Good luck

            Paul

            Comment

            • MrFluffy
              Automated Home Sr Member
              • Aug 2005
              • 79

              #21
              There are plenty of pascal compilers available for various flavours of *nix, but of course the old Java run once nowhere without some porting problem could apply especially as the dephi cross compiles against the .NET foundation libraries.

              Ill email them to see if they want to release the spec of the packet contents. I'm not expecting them to port cortex on a whim as thats just not financially viable and thats the bottom line for a company, just release some info that enables the core protocol to be implemented.

              I probably will end up borrowing or imaging a old laptop with xp and trying cortex, if only for evaluation purposes, I just don't want to lock into one software vendors products.

              Comment

              • Paul_B
                Automated Home Legend
                • Jul 2006
                • 608

                #22
                Another method maybe the XAP protocol as Idratek now support this through Cortex. I know that this still meane Cortex is doing the translation but if XAP is ported to *nix maybe this is an alternate route.

                Once again good luck

                Comment

                • Kevin
                  Moderator
                  • Jan 2004
                  • 558

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Paul_B View Post
                  Another method maybe the XAP protocol as Idratek now support this through Cortex. I know that this still meane Cortex is doing the translation but if XAP is ported to *nix maybe this is an alternate route.
                  xAP is both network and OS agnostic and we do already have several *nix applications out there. However Cortex does the translation between the IDRANet protocol and xAP so, as Paul says, that's not going to mean you can do without Cortex...

                  At some stage I would love to consider designing an embedded hardware xAP gateway allowing xAP and IDRANet devices to interact in a 'Reflex' type of way and thus exposing IDRANet devices to other means for control plus the fallback operation. I already have the hardware to do this, but it would require access to the IDRANet protocol information to implement. This way IDRANet hardware could be a valuable product range for xAP networks too.

                  However Cortex is such a great application and for me it's absolutely stable, running on a vanilla XP WHS machine so I feel very comfortable. Cortex also provides all the configuration setup for the IDRANet devices. I now feel with XP that it's always the bits you add that cause issues and not the core OS.

                  Originally posted by MrFluffy View Post
                  I just don't want to lock into one software vendors products.
                  What you can do is run Cortex and then use the xAP protocol to control and monitor IDRANet devices. xAP is an open and free protocol and can be implemented from any OS. There are plugins for other HA applications and the Linux based MisterHouse has inbuilt xAP support. This will require you have Cortex running all the time , which may not be your ideal model but would provide an open solution.

                  I think as you explore Cortex you will find it most powerful and the ability to supplement its functionality with other applications on any OS via xAP could be just what you're wanting. Handling much richer data via xAP eg Weather, TV listings, RSS feeds etc is a useful adjunct. You can add touchscreen functionality and custom web pages too.

                  Kevin
                  Last edited by Kevin; 10 September 2008, 12:20 PM.

                  Comment

                  • chris_j_hunter
                    Automated Home Legend
                    • Dec 2007
                    • 1713

                    #24
                    I agonised the same as you ... in the end, I accepted the situation & went for a self-assembled low-power 24/7 MiniITX PC completely dedicated to Cortex, to run on an otherwise all-Mac network ... if Idratek had not been totally reliant on native access to RS232, we'd almost certainly have gone for a Mac Mini with Parallels, running 'XP & OSX & maybe Linux, too - a far more comfortable approach, but it was not to be ! Fortunately, the MiniITX PCs are low power - ie: the extra costs (significant at they are) will be mitigated (to some degree) over time. I'm sure their decision to go with Windows seemed inevitable (I almost said logical) at the time, but it's a real shame ...
                    Last edited by chris_j_hunter; 10 September 2008, 07:42 PM.
                    Our self-build - going further with HA...

                    Comment

                    • jpdw
                      Automated Home Guru
                      • Oct 2007
                      • 169

                      #25
                      another similar view!

                      I'm also in favour of linux over MS so I had similar desire to avoid a windows machine. After "playing" with Cortex I realised a lot would be lost even if you could decode the packets & emulate commands sent.

                      Power consumption of multiple servers is/was also a concern for me so my original intention was to run Cortex in a VM on my Linux server, but performance and need of a native serial port caused a change of heart.

                      So I'm currently building a single mini-itx server which will run XP natively for Cortex but also hosting linux via coLinux. So far, the XP/coLinux combination seems stable (though without cortex so far) so it looks promising. And all under 30w.

                      My advice would be to beg/borrow/buy a windows XP box for testing cortex using a 30 day trial licence. If you like it, do as some others of us have done and accept you need a windows box to run it. I'm sure you could happily run cortex on a windows hardware platform that others are throwing away as "out of date". Use remote desktop from your usual workstation and you can almost forget you have a windows box in your server rack!
                      Jon

                      Comment

                      • JonS
                        Automated Home Guru
                        • Dec 2007
                        • 202

                        #26
                        Care to share what board and components you've used for your machine? I am planning to buiuld one before christamas but was hoping to get <20W as my current laptop runs at about that incl screen. Have looked With interest at the new Atom chips (and Acer apsire one of a colleague), but according the the Reg the other chips on the board are power hungry, so maybe VIA is still the low power way to go?
                        TIA
                        Jon
                        JonS

                        Comment

                        • chris_j_hunter
                          Automated Home Legend
                          • Dec 2007
                          • 1713

                          #27
                          Ours is an EK10000G, with a DVI daughter board, as much extra memory as was possible, a good HD, an optical drive, a Travla 137 case etc, plus leads to feed off additional on-board RS232 pins, and OEM 'XP ... all from LinITX ... plus an IVX200 video capture board, dome camera, etc.

                          the issue of how to link to the Internet remains open ... I'm hoping to be able to go via the Macs, but ... maybe David has tried various ways ???
                          Last edited by chris_j_hunter; 17 September 2008, 11:01 PM. Reason: afterthought
                          Our self-build - going further with HA...

                          Comment

                          • jpdw
                            Automated Home Guru
                            • Oct 2007
                            • 169

                            #28
                            Originally posted by JonS View Post
                            Care to share what board and components you've used for your machine? I am planning to buiuld one before christamas but was hoping to get <20W as my current laptop runs at about that incl screen. Have looked With interest at the new Atom chips (and Acer apsire one of a colleague), but according the the Reg the other chips on the board are power hungry, so maybe VIA is still the low power way to go?
                            TIA
                            Jon
                            - EN1200 (1.2Ghz proc, no fan)
                            - 160Gb 2.5 HD (ie laptop spec for further power saving)
                            - 1 x 1Gb memory stick.
                            - Additional PCI ethernet card (not currently in use).
                            - 60W silent PSU set (from linitx).

                            Running XP & CoLinux but currently without Cortex or any real load on the linux side, it ticks along at 19-21w according to my plug-in mains power thingy. If the ethernet card remains unused I might remove it and save perhaps another 0.5w! Cortex will add some load but it's only a small installation to manage the heating so I dont expect it to make much difference, so should still be <30w.

                            The board is vastly more capable on video playback than I need, but I wanted the high processor speed without fan cooling -- running XP & coLinux on my old 800Mhz original just would not have worked (plus most recent linux builds expect CMOV processor instruction, making the old C3 boards a PITA to install).

                            I still need to finish setting it up - ie Linux server apps for email & web and other things currently on my existing linux box, then finally Cortex. But newly arrived twins are causing this project to have "resource shortages".

                            I read a similar review of the atom, though by then I had bought the VIA board already. Hopefully the power-hungry accessories chips will get improved for v2!
                            Jon

                            Comment

                            • Gumby
                              Moderator
                              • May 2004
                              • 437

                              #29
                              Originally posted by chris_j_hunter View Post
                              the issue of how to link to the Internet remains open ... I'm hoping to be able to go via the Macs, but ... maybe David has tried various ways ???
                              I briefly exposed the web server directly, but don't anymore. Long term plan was to put a reverse proxy on a NSLU2 (slug) and sit that in the DMZ on my firewall. But recently I invested in a PAYG "3" stick which enabled me to get VPNs working between my macbook and the firewall, so now I just VPN straight in and run remote desktop. I guess I'll get back to the web server at some point.

                              I didn't understand the "via the Macs" bit. Were you meaning to use the Macs a s a firewall or router? I'm assuming you've got an ADSL router somewhere, most have halfway decent firewalls these days.
                              ----------------------
                              www.gumbrell.com

                              Comment

                              • chris_j_hunter
                                Automated Home Legend
                                • Dec 2007
                                • 1713

                                #30
                                >invested in a PAYG "3" stick which enabled me to get VPNs working between my MacBook and the firewall, so now I just VPN straight in and run remote desktop ...

                                don't really follow that ... could you expand, a little ?

                                >didn't understand the "via the Macs" bit ... the Macs as a firewall or router ... ADSL router somewhere, most have halfway decent firewalls ...

                                we have a Contract "3" stick which goes into one of the Macs - usually one of the laptops - which all share via the network (Wi-Fi usually, and/or Ethernet, sometimes) ... plus a Time Capsule, currently a door-stop, but soon to be the hub of the network, into which all (MiniITX to be included) will link via Ethernet / Wi-Fi / USB ... ... ie: no ASDL router !

                                BTW, Jaadu (VNC) works a treat on iPhone & iPod Touch - we use them as remote's to control our Macs via Wi-Fi (just-about complete functionality, others say it works via 3G, too, 'though we've not tried that) ... ie: looks like it could be a good as a full-function remote' for Idratek ... OK, the screen's small, so wouldn't want to do a lot via it, but it's quick & dead-easy to zoom & move about, so quick adjustments & overrides would probably be no problem, even fairly elaborate ones ...
                                Our self-build - going further with HA...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X