I have two remote XBees each is connected to a microcontroller. The microcontrollers sample the waveforms of two different points of power system and send data to receiver xbee which ultimately is imported into LabVIEW.
Now the problem is I need to analyze the two different data streams without for example a data point from XBee 1 ending up in the XBee 2 data set.
One method that I think is to introduce some recognized numbers in sending data so that on its basis we can identity that the data is of Xbee 1 or 2. How can I do that?
http://forums.ni.com/ni/attachments/ni/170/964005/1/ThreePhaseNewwindow.vi
http://forums.ni.com/ni/attachments/ni/170/964005/2/Capture.PNG
Related
I'm working on my second experiment for my master thesis and my supervisor had some requirements on this experiment and I don't really know how to proceed. Earlier I was thinking that it should be just to forward the packets but now facing the problem hands on I don't know where to begin.
The setup is Computer 1 ->Measurement point->System Under Test->Measurement point-> Computer2
The System Under Test consists of 2 VMs created with the XEN management tool XL.
There is a bridge from computer 1 on the interface "eth0" to "SUT" which is connected to the VM and the same thing on the otherside to computer 2.
I'm going to send 2 UDP streams and compare the timestamps over the measurement points with two servers on computer 2. The streams are going to be separated by port number and keyid for the stream.
My question is how do I make one of the UDP stream take the route through one of the VMs and the other UDP stream to take the other route?
So, I'm managing a series of rented holiday homes, which all have dynamic IP, ADSL Internet connections.
We've wanted to keep track of a few types of data, e.g. per-room electricity usage, hot water temperature, thermostat setting, gas usage, network bandwidth usage, etc etc, and keep these centrally so we can perform analytics and graph them in real-time.
I'm comfortable building the hardware required to log these variables every 1-5 seconds and get them into e.g. a Raspberry Pi, but I'm wondering what kind of framework would be suitable for transferring and storing the data on the server side.
My initial thought was something like SNMP, but a) this doesn't seem designed for non-network uses, b) it's not very secure, and c) I'm looking for something agent-to-server (so I don't have to know the IP of the agent, and it'll also traverse NAT, so I can have multiple devices logging different things on the same network.)
My second thought was something using a REST API, but making potentially hundreds of API calls per second via different TCP connections seems a bit wasteful.
I came across Cubism but this seems to have the same disadvantages as some sort of REST API; there's a lot of redundant data transmitted every connection, if I were to send the data every 5 seconds per sensor.
Names like AMQP and MQTT come up, though none of these seem particularly suited (natively) to travelling over the public Internet without configuring VPNs etc.
Thoughts?
[This doesn't seem like a particularly niche problem, now I think about it - weather logging, share price, etc etc... although this is probably a smaller interval]
I have an geospatial/environment monitoring background and can tell you something about two major standards which are used today in environmental/infrastructural (electricity and water supply networks) monitoring sensor networks.
Proprietary one: Most sensors simply store time series measurements in their own local data format. A server process calls every sensor from time to time to gather the time series data (in most cases via a simple GPRS uplink), transforms it into an exchange Format and then stores it into a centralized database where you can work with the data. One of the industry leader companies is Kisters AG and their exchange format ZRXP. So this is simply storing time series data in an ASCII Format (i.e.ZRXP), and import that into a database by calling the sensor over any connection.
Open Geospatial Standard: Sensor Observation Service and SensorML which I think does more fit your needs, because these are Web Service Specifications whilst the proprietary stuff above is a complete system solution built by one vendor. There exists a nearly ready to use java reference implementation of SOS provided by 52 north which should be easily runnable on a Pi. Although the SOS specification has a very strong geospatial background, that does not mean,that it can't be adopted for your purpose I think. At least SensorML should give you some ideas.
I have programmed a couple of MSP430x6xx microcontrollers to serve as Master for some I2C slave devices. One of the MSP430s transfer the data received from I2C slaves to a PC using its built in USB Module. I want to extend this to allow all Micro controllers to send data received from their respective I2C slaves to PC using a common bus system. Will it be feasible to use SPI for transferring the data from all MSP430s to a single MSP430 master(already serving as I2C master and USB device simultaneously) which then transfers it to PC? I would appreciate any other suggestions. Thanks
Yes, it is feasible we will have to write your firmware to handle this. You have to identify on the PC somehow from whom SPI/I2C slave it comes the data. So, your main MSP430xxx will do this adding some kind of header to the data saying the id of the slave device.
(2nd Update from 2012/12/06 -- new protocol, a sligtly different view)
The question is whether the solution below seems reasonable for you, or whether there is any flaw that I did not notice (being quite new to SQL Server Service Broker)...
I would like to continue in analysis of the problem presented in the SQL Service Broker: Collecting data from distributed sources. I would like to focus on the problem of protocol to be used when collecting data from the satellite SQL servers. The usage of the SQL Server Service Broker is a must -- it is dictated also by other reasons not presented here. So, please, do not suggest completely alternative solutions.
I would like to focus on details of what should be done and how to use the Service Broker naturally (the best possible way) for the exact problem. The overall goal was presented in the above mentioned question. The picture first:
Now more details to be considered...
Plug-in architecture wanted
The satellite machines are related to real physical production lines. It can happen that some machine is added to the technology process, some machine can disappear, some machine can be replaced in the sense it will use the same production-line identification, but it is physically different -- i.e. its SQL server is a different instance.
The central server knows nothing about the satellite until it gets first messages from it. There is no centralized database of the satelite servers. No knowledge about what and how many satelite SQL servers are to be included to the system. It is always decided on the satelite site.
Any activity related to collecting the data should be initiated by events generated by the satellite machines.
Important: The goal is to continually transfer all the newly created data (from sensors), and to discover and fix drop-outs -- independently on whatever could cause them.
To give you the concrete example:
The machine identified by line number 3 (yellow) was recently added to the environment. Its SQL Server Express was launched and it started to collect the sensor data (the third party solution, dedicated table with special structure). The machine was not connected to the central server, yet.
The only configuration thing is the reliably assigned fixed identification of the production line (here 3), and all the neccessary details to connect to the central SQL server. But the central SQL server does not know the information. The central is just ready to accept data from any new souce, but never knows when. (It was already tested for one machine using the approach suggested by Remus Rusanu answer to the question SQL Service Broker — one central SQL and more satelite SQL….)
The piece of the SQL software is deployed on the machine 3 just a bit later. It starts to talk with the central. The satellite part is not dumb, but its own activity is to send the sensor data whenever new record is inserted to the sensor data table (see point 1 above). From the record, UTC time is calculated (from the proprietary format), several sensor data from one record is converted to the same number of normalized records (formatted as one XML message), and sent to the central SQL server.
The central is activated by the message with the sensor data sent from the satellite machine. The failures of the physical connection is masked by the Service Broker queues.
After a reasonable interval (here one hour), the central server checks whether the so far collected data should be processed or not. There is a work unit that takes some production time, and the data should be processed and added to the documentation of the unit. The processing should happen only when the unit was finished.
The central also checks whether it has all the data for the unit. As the sensor sampling is done in known regular intervals (here about 1 minute), the central can check whether there are some drop-outs. There also is an initial "drop-out" for the time interval when the satellite was not connected to the central via SSB. The mechanism should recover from whatever situation. It can also happen that the sensor where out of order or the data were not collected. The detected drop-out at the central may actually mean that central asks: "I have no data from you for this time interval. Send me some of them if they exist, or tell me they do not exist."
The satellite should send only that much data that can be sent between the sampling times. The recovery from drop-outs can be rather slow. The delay of processing the data at the central server is not critical. However, the central should know when the data is ready (or does not exist for the detected time interval).
Some picture, more solution details
I have chosen the "Recycling conversations" by Remus Rusanu as the basic framework for the communication between the satellite and the central. It defines the EndOfStream message type to signal that the conversation handle should be thrown away and the new one should be used. The lifetime is limited by the above mentioned one hour interval generated by the Service Broker timer.
The message is (mis)used at the central server also for activation of the data processing. At about the same time, the central checks for drop-outs. The central keeps the time below that the drop-outs where already checked. This way it knows what data are ready to be processed.
Do you consider the scenario reasonable? Can you see any problem with it?
(I am going to refine the question to reflect your suggestions.)
Thanks for your time and experience, and have a nice day.
Petr
All data should be stored in table. On satellite side, you should create a table for last processed row to be stored. When new request from Central arrives, new data pack will be sent back to Central depending on last processed record value.
Note: i recommend to limit a number of rows to be sent depending on your data to do not create very large data packs.
When Central processed all rows, appropriate message should be sent to Satellite. It also should contain information about data import errors occurred.
You can start Service Broker conversation when database activity is registered (using DML/DDL triggers on both Central/Satellite database) or within schedule (using Central Agent job).
I need to record simultaneously from two sources, one connect to the left channel of my mic, the other connect to right. Possible to do that with NAudio ?
Yes, but you will be recording from both channels at once, so the samples will arrive interleaved. Assuming you are recording in 16 bit audio, you would take two pairs of two bytes from the recorded buffer, and write one pair to one WAV file, and one to another.
See my answer here showing how you do this for an existing multi-channel WAV file.