data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/633d2/633d24e1cf062d08d71f921086ae2ea4cf13a194" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f70aa/f70aa7abd0e8049a07512185eb2f42d0e91cfa36" alt=""
Let me paint a picture. You're starting a sizable new plant from scratch. You decide to buy a single $50k server from Dell as the main workhorse. It will be running "8 servers", (domain controller, database, web, email, etc) each with their own: memory, IP address(es), etc. Once the system is up, you decide that you don't want to install anything without testing it first. Fine, you use the same image on a different machine, install and test the software, then copy that image onto 'ol beefy. Suppose your email server needs more memory - you simply assign 4 gigs of the 32 total to that "instance" instead of 2. Now suppose that you're supporting something that's architecturally heavy, like Wonderware or RSView via thin clients on a Terminal Server. All of a sudden you need most of the processing power of your beast. Well, you can "move" instances to other servers. If we take this one step farther, you can actually have a virtualized infrastructure that would allow you to add hardware without changing anything. This type of setup can be cheaper, more flexible, and efficient than its traditional counterpart.
So we've covered how virtualization helps with servers in general. It can be a big help in supporting legacy HMI/SCADA technologies. It's really good for programs that are tough to configure (ah choo-Linux setups-oo). It seems less important for FactorySQL and FactoryPMI - they're already pretty good about being easy to install or move and having a lightweight footprint - especially on the client end with Java Web Start. You could set up a virtualized "production" and "testing" environment, both on the same computer, but this is pretty pointless since each installation would be better separate, and each could support the entire network on a desktop PC. I could see bigger setups greatly benefit from running virtualized instances.
5 comments:
Just curious if you think virtual servers will be able to handle the real-time nature of HMI/SCADA systems?
I have virtualized SCADA systems in water and wastewater facilities. It runs solid and has huge benefits. Typically running four guest virtual machines including Wonderware Intouch, Wonderware Historian (InSQL) Server, SDMS (SCADA Document Management System) Server and a systems monitoring server.
The Dell Server we purchased was less than $5k and runs ESX 4.1.
We also deployed a high availability system using real time vm replication and daily vm snapshots. We used Vizioncore software along with a 4TB DNS-323 NAS.
Bottom Line: It cost $15k to virtualize an entire plant and we haven't experienced any issues.
Feel free to call me any time if you wish to discuss.
Mike Crawford - 905-220-8349
mcrawford@insyghtsystems.com
@Scott
In short, yes. Virtual servers can handle the real-time nature of HMI/SCADA systems.
Virtual servers have nearly identical performance capabilities to physical servers. The trend is actually purchasing significantly more powerful servers, often with 20+ cores, 128+ gigs RAM, etc. VMs can then be given the computing resources that you need.
@Michael
That's fantastic! I love to see increased capabilities in SCADA systems at a lower cost, particularly with cool technologies like virtualization.
video snapshot software-Visit SnapLark.com - Screen Capture Software, video recording software, Video Snapshot Software. You can Crop image, record your screen, Gif Recording & grab video.
Post a Comment