Return-Path: oreilly@mbari.org Received: from slush.shore.mbari.org (LHLO slush.shore.mbari.org) (134.89.12.31) by slush.shore.mbari.org with LMTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slush.shore.mbari.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9EED45E010; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:18:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mbari.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from slush.shore.mbari.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (slush.shore.mbari.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oBb3zBd9I1b4; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.250.32.206] (unknown [69.88.13.47]) by slush.shore.mbari.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5293645E00C; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: Tom O'Reilly To: Kent Headley , Bob Herlien , Thom Maughan , Chad Kecy , Kevin Gomes , Bill Kirkwood Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-138-359747423 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: xFOCE review comments Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:18:36 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) --Apple-Mail-138-359747423 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi everyone, I know Kent will publish review notes soon and they'll be discussed at Monday's FOCE meeting. I'll be at sea on Monday, unable to attend, but here are some thoughts I had. I think a few reviewer comments highlight the importance of instrument installation and swapping procedures: Users want to continue acquiring data even if an instrument fails; i.e. don't want to shut down the entire experiment if a single instrument fails or must otherwise be replaced. Among other implications, this suggests that instrument "hot swap" capability is useful, either at the sensor pod or instrument level. The maintenance frequency differs from one instrument to another. If the sensor pod is the basic replacement unit, this means that instruments must be grouped on pods such that all instruments on a pod should be replaced at the same time. In this scenario, some pods might have fewer than 3 instruments - how many serial ports are then required on the gateway node? I think we should sketch out the instrument/pod replacement process in some detail, and how frequently replacement occurs. Regarding the need for separate tool chains for gateway and sensor pod software development, Brent Roman suggests that the pod firmware be kept generic with no hard-coded instrument-specific logic. This suggests either running the drivers on the gateway, downloading drivers to pods at runtime, or running "universal" parameterized drivers on the pods. Davey reiterated that power consumed by the pump overwhelms the other power draws in the system, so it seems that designing an ultra-low power sensor pod may be overkill. Those are my $0.02 (until I return from the cruise anyway ;-)) Tom ------------------------------------------------ Thomas C. O'Reilly Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 7700 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 831-775-1766 oreilly@mbari.org http://www.mbari.org "The machine does not isolate man from the great mysteries of nature, but plunges him more deeply into them." - ANTOINE DE SAINT-EXUPERY "Wind, Sand, and Stars" (1939) --Apple-Mail-138-359747423 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi = everyone,

I know Kent will publish review notes soon = and they'll be discussed at Monday's FOCE meeting. I'll be at sea on = Monday, unable to attend, but here are some thoughts I = had.

I think a few reviewer comments highlight = the importance of instrument installation and swapping = procedures:

Users want = to continue acquiring data even if an instrument fails; i.e. don't want = to shut down the entire experiment if a single instrument fails or must = otherwise be replaced. Among other implications, this suggests that = instrument "hot swap" capability is useful, either at the sensor pod or = instrument level.
The maintenance frequency differs from one = instrument to another. If the sensor pod is the basic replacement unit, = this means that instruments must be grouped on pods such that all = instruments on a pod should be replaced at the same time. In this = scenario, some pods might have fewer than 3 instruments - how many = serial ports are then required on the gateway = node?

I think we should sketch out = the instrument/pod replacement process in some detail, and how = frequently replacement occurs.

Regarding = the need for separate tool chains for gateway and sensor pod software = development, Brent Roman suggests that the pod firmware be kept generic = with no hard-coded instrument-specific logic. This suggests either = running the drivers on the gateway, downloading drivers to pods at = runtime, or running "universal" parameterized drivers on the = pods.

Davey reiterated that power = consumed by the pump overwhelms the other power draws in the system, so = it seems that designing an ultra-low power sensor pod may be = overkill.

Those are my $0.02 (until I return = from the cruise anyway = ;-))

Tom

------------------------------------------------

Tho= mas C. O'Reilly
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
7700 = Sandholdt Road
Moss Landing, CA 95039
831-775-1766
oreilly@mbari.org
http://www.mbar= i.org
"The machine does not isolate man from the great mysteries of = nature,
but plunges him more deeply into = them."

- ANTOINE DE = SAINT-EXUPERY
"Wind, Sand, and Stars" = (1939)

= --Apple-Mail-138-359747423--