Re: Dedicated Z-wave sites?

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:37:57 -0500, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<LsKdnXy1WohgYRzYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

>"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:s4d3o2d2crd3q055rtea90nbm3spkaf1fd@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:13:05 -0500, "Robert Green"
><ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote in message  <cJSdnUvB1ri3LBzYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>>
>> >"Dean Roddey" <droddey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:jlhgh.24869
>> >
>> ><stuff snipped>
>> >
>> >> I dunno. I think that you are maybe stressing out over something that's
>> >> not nearly as big an issue as you are thinking. Yes, there are crappy
>> >> devcie drivers out there. And if you configure a machine with a fairly
>> >> random set
>> >> of hardware, you can have problems. OTOH, there are quality products
>> >> out there that work, and they become known well enough. A machine that
>> >> is set up with good quality hardware and drivers, which isn't used as a
>> >> daily use machine (i.e. it's configuration is not changed and web
>> >> surfing isn't done  on it and things that aren't needed are turned off
>> >> in the OS, i.e. a standard kiosk style touch screen client or a server
>> >> in the closet) can be stable for years without problems.
>> >
>> >That's a lotta futzing and "kid gloving."  It likely means no one will be
>> >plugging IP cams and Ethernet switches into that same network which could
>> >limit usefulness in a big way, at least in terms of HA.
>>
>> Bobby,
>>
>> I don't understand why you would say this. One could kill a network in a
>> variety of less esoteric ways -- for instance  shorting two wires in the
>> CAT5. What does  this have to do with the stability of an HA server? If
>> (eg) an IP camera breaks a network, the problem is with the camera.
>
>It's got to do with why HA programs like CQ are slow to gain acceptance.  I
>just bought a Panasonic Netcam from Smarthome.  I want to plug it into my
>system and email pictures to my cellphone.  Wouldn't the natural place to
>install such a beast be the HA server?


  From the Smarthome site:
		The Panasonic Network Camera provides high-quality color
		video that can be viewed from any Internet-connected
		PC in the world,

So the answer to your question would seem to be "No".

Seems to me that the 'natural place' would be for the IP camera and any
proprietary SW to reside in its entirety in the camera at its IP address and
not have any interaction with any other OS or gizmo until called upon, and
then only to serve out images as directed -- all without any drivers on any
other machine. (Seems to me that we've had at least part of this conversation
before.)

>If a net cam has a *really* bad
>driver, it's going to blow up CQ.

And thus shouldn't be used. I can blow up CQ by hitting the hard drive with a
hammer, too.

>For CQ to be attractive to me, it would
>have to implement some of the features that I referred to in the NOOKS
>citation.  Many people cite the decline of Homeseer reliability as
>coinciding with the heavy reliance on "plug ins" - really another form of
>device drivers.  Something I saw today said that 6/7ths of the existing
>Linux codebase now consists of device driver code.


OKAY. So there is no PC-based home automation software that meets your
desiderata.  Seems that you will go without for theoretical reasons and for
what others would consider unreasonable expectations.

So go without.

Others with a different set of expectations will do jist fine.  I used Savoy's
CyberHouse beginning in 1999 with Win98 for years with none of the problems
that you seem to _want_ to induce.

>If we are to follow best practices, it now sounds as if we're talking a
>client to go along with that server.  The costs of the dedicated HW alone
>are now starting to exit the home market price range.

What does this mean? I just bought a used rack-mounted 1.6 ghz , Intel-made
mother board machine on ebay for $150 which will become the new HA server.

>But Dean says he's
>not targeting that market, so maybe it's no problem for anyone needing CQ's
>features.  If X-10 has taught me anything, it's that price matters.  A lot.

You've spent more than $350 just on X-10 signal enhancements some of which are
now discarded. So price matters to you a lot on some matters, and less on
others.


>> It is conventional IP Best Practice to allocate servers on an at-least-
>> one-per-function basis.
>
>Business practice, sure.  Home network practice, not so sure.
>
>Server farms have a very low SAF. :-)  So, IMHO, does more than one PC per
>room.  Compromises are far more likely to occur in home installations where
>people aren't likely to be IT pros.

Wasn't it you who was saying not too long ago that low-powered mini-itx PC's
that could be squirreled away most anywhere were the Future Of Home
Automation?  Were you also gonna have Sis do her homework on it?  Since cpm,
one CPU per user has been mantra. This is nothing new or demanding or
unlikely. In my house, there are three wintel machine per person (1-desk, 1-
laptop and 1- infrastructure. The laptop and desk overlap because in part of
restrictions on use of work computers for private purposes.

>
>> Why should HA servers deviate from what are established
>> best practices? An HA server is a discrete function. It is sound practice
>> to allocate at least one CPU to it --  not "kid gloving".
>
>I dunno.  I have plenty of machines that serve more than dual purposes.
>Were I to strictly devote one PC per application, I would be running a
>server farm.

Hippo talk. Nobody is suggesting one CPU for *all* applications. I/we are
saying that it is best to dedicate a computer to HA.  Consider re-reading your
own previous posts about mini-itx. A pentium computer capable of running
Homeseer, CyberHouse or CQS can be purchased from Dell that fits inside of a
standard wall-switch junction box and runs off POE. So why the hyperbole about
'server farms'?

>While it may certainly be best practices for a business, size
>and money constraints often dictate that more than one application is going
>to live on a server, especially on a home network.  It's been my contention
>that while it should be possible, it's usually only achievable by a PC guru
>that can configure a server the way Perlman can strum a violin.

So you are stuck without, while others are doing jist fine with?  It occurs to
me to ask what experience you have with _actual_  _HA_  software running
24x7x365 on a PC. Are you fussing about doing in the future what others have
done successfully for years?

[snip]

>Let me ask you this.  Best IP practices dictate grandfather, father, son
>rotating backups, some of which should be stored off site, all of which
>should be tested to insure accurate data restoration.  How many businesses
>do you think do it?  How many home network administrators?  There's the
>ideal and theoretical world and then there's the jungle of the real world.

In my real world (which gave up on tapes long ago) I find that I can have
daily, weekly, periodic and long-term backups on different machines in my
network, on drives physically located in the safety deposit box at the bank
and backup files stored on a different server elsewhere in the world in
cooperative fashion. By now, many folks have friends and family members in
different locations connected by the net with 24*7 connections. This is not
difficult or a jungle. Reliable and practical and amenable to unattended
automation. Only "backup" software one needs is xcopy and the windows
scheduler. The cost of removable hard drives used is trivial compared to the
value of the data stored in my case. I jist do it -- instead of fussing about
it. It's not 100% because nothing is.

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org