To send PDO messages, a prioritization is done, which message is of high importance, how should we understand this?
In the photo below, the point is that the priority is 181 and then for the rest, where is this set from?
CANopen isn't different from any other CAN bus. The lower the COBID, the higher the priority. 0x180 etc is just default COBID too, you can change to custom ones if you need to change priorities. In fact you have to change COBID somewhere, so that one node's TPDO COBID matches the COBID of at least one RXPDO. It's custom to change the COBID on the part that's easiest to configure, like for example a PLC, rather than changing it for a "dumb" node like some actuator.
Related
I am learning about DHT and I came upon shortcuts. It seems they are used to make the routing faster and skip going directly back-the-chain for better performance. What I don't understand is: Suppose we have a circular DHT made out of 100 servers/nodes/HT. You get some key data to server/node/HT 10 and it must be sent to server/node/HT 76. When the destination is reached, and the value is taken couldn't I just provide the IP of the requester (server 10) and then it will directly send the value to 10, which seems to make shortcuts useless?
Thank you in advance.
Edit: Useless for returning the value. Not getting to it.
You're assuming a circular network layout and forwading-based routing. Both of which only apply to a subset of DHTs.
Anyway, the forward path would still go through all the nodes, any of which might be down or have transient network problems. As the number of hops goes up so does the cumulative error probability. Additionally it increases latency, which matters on a global scale because at least simple DHT routing algorithms don't account for physical proximity.
For the return it can also matter if reachability is asymmetrical, e.g. due to firewalls.
Can anyone explain why temporal need two paramters: numTaskqueueWritePartitions and numTaskqueueReadPartitions?
I think we use one parameters numTaskqueuePartitions for read and wirte which is enough.
It is needed to support shrinking the number of partitions without losing tasks. Set numTaskqueueWritePartitions < numTaskqueueReadPartitions to drain the backlog from the partitions to be removed. After no messages are left in those partitions set numTaskqueueReadPartitions to the value of numTaskqueueWritePartitions.
I want to use CANopen, and by the preconfigured set a device can have more than one COB-ID(as it has different function codes)
I want to know if the CAN bus frame identifier uses CANopen's COB-ID as it is.
A CANopen node cannot use multiple identifiers at the same time, but it's technically possible to reconfigure the node-ID. According to CiA301 - CANopen application layer and communication profiles, during NMT state initialization the parameters of the manufacture specific profile area and of the standardized device profile area are set to their power-on values.
One way to implement this is to assign a default node-ID for the CANopen node. Then reserve a SDO object in the object dictionary to modify the node-ID after reset or power-on. Note that if you want to fully follow CANopen standard, when you change the node-ID, the CAN-ID allocation modify the IDs for the other NMT states and communication objects such as SDO, PDO, etc.
Check this link for further information.
The implementation guides (and most web resources I can find) describe the GS06 and ST02 Control Numbers as being unique only within the Interchange they are contained in. So when we build our GS and ST segments we just start the control numbers at 1 and increment as we add more Functional Groups and/or Transaction Sets. The ISA13 control numbers we generate are always unique.
The dilemma is when we receive a 999 acknowledgment; it does not include any reference to the ISA control number that it's responding to. So we have no way to find the correct originating Functional Group in our records.
This seems like a problem that anyone receiving functional acknowledgements would face, but clearly lots of systems and companies handle it, so what is the typical practice to reconcile 997s or 999s? I think we must be missing something in our reading of the guides.
GS06 and ST02 only have to be unique within the interchange, but if you use an ID that's truly unique for each one (not just within the message), then you can skip right to the proper transaction set or functional group, not just the right message.
I typically have GS start at 1 and increment the same way that you do, but the ST02 I keep unique (to the extent allowed by the 9 character limit).
GS06 is supposed to be globally unique, not only within the interchange. This is from X12-6
In order to provide sufficient discrimination for the acknowledgment
process to operate reliably and to ensure that audit trails are
unambiguous, the combination of Functional ID Code (GS01), Application
Sender's ID (GS02), Application Receiver's ID (GS03), and Functional
Group Control Numbers (GS06, GE02) shall by themselves be unique
within a reasonably extended time frame whose boundaries shall be
defined by trading partner agreement. Because at some point it may be
necessary to reuse a sequence of control numbers, the Functional Group
Date and Time may serve as an additional discriminant only to
differentiate functional group identity over the longest possible time
frame.
So i've gone thru the Audio Unit Hosting Guide for iOS and they hint all along that one might always want to use an AUGraph instead of direct connections between AUs. Among the most notable reasons they mention a high-priority thread, being able to reconfigure the graph while it is running and general thread-safety.
My problem is that I'm trying to get as close to "making my own custom dsp effects" as possible given that iOS does not really let you dynamically load custom code. So, my approach is to create a generic output unit and write the DSP code in its render callback. Now the problem with this approach is if I wanted to chain two of these units with custom callbacks in a graph. Since a graph must have a single output au (for head), trying to add any more output units won't fly. That is, I cant have 2 Generic I/O units and a Remote I/O unit in sequence in a graph.
If I really wanted to use AUGraphs, I can think of one solution along the lines of:
A graph interface that internally keeps an AUGraph with a single Output unit plus, for each connected node in the graph, a list of "custom callback" generic output nodes that are in theory connected to such node. Maybe it could be a class / interface over AUNode instead, but hopefully you get the idea.
If I add non output units to this graph, it essentially connects them in the usual way to the backing AUGraph.
If however, I add a generic output node, this really means adding the node's au to the list and whichever node I am connecting in the graph to, actually gets its input scope / element 0 callback set to something like:
for each unit in your connected list:
call AudioUnitRender(...) and merge in ioData;
So that the node which is "connected" to any number of those "custom" nodes basically pulls the processed output from them and outputs it to whatever next non-custom node.
Sure there might be some loose ends in the idea above, but I think this would work with a bit more thought.
Now my question is, what if instead I do direct connections between AUs without an AUGraph whatsoever? Without an AUGraph in the picture, I can definitely connect many generic output units with callbacks to one final Remote I/O output and this seems to work just fine. Thing is kAudioUnitProperty_MakeConnection is a property. So I'm not sure that once an AU is initialized I can re set properties. I believe if I uninitialize then it's ok. If so, couldn't I just get GCD's high priority queue and dispatch any changes in async blocks that uninitialize, re connect and initialize again?