| Author |
|
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 27 2009 at 17:48 | IP Logged
|
|
|
I few weeks ago I started missing Group Ins from my 2 ControLincs. SH sent me a new PLM and I still have the same problem. It works fine with PLC but not with the PLM but it use to. I suspect linking but can’t find it.
This is the log from a PLC and PLM at the same time on 2 different systems. The entries are from hitting the 4 button on. As you can see the Cx in the flag byte is missing in the PLM trace.
PLC
ui:cls
PLC:eventraw=02
PLC:eventraw=03
PLC:receiveinsteonraw=02 0A 3D B3 00 00 01 CB 11 01
PLC:eventraw=02
PLC:eventraw=03
PLC:receiveinsteonraw=02 0A 3D B3 00 00 01 CB 11 01
PLC:eventraw=02
PLC:receiveinsteonraw=02 0F 42 4E 0A 3D B3 65 11 01
PLC:eventraw=02
PLC:eventraw=03
PLC:receiveinsteonraw=02 08 27 56 00 00 04 CF 11 00
PLC:eventraw=02
PLC:receiveinsteonraw=02 08 27 56 0F 42 4E 45 11 04
PLM
13:41:10.287 RX RECEIVEINSTEONRAW=0A 3D B3 00 00 01 C7 11 01
13:41:10.505 RX RECEIVEINSTEONRAW=0A 3D B3 00 00 01 C7 11 01
13:41:10.730 RX RECEIVEINSTEONRAW=0A 3D B3 0F 42 4E 41 11 01
13:41:33.556 RX RECEIVEINSTEONRAW=08 27 56 0F 42 4E 41 11 04
The configurations for the PLC are the same. When I swap the PLC for the PLM it works. When I go back to the PLM it fails
Any thoughts…
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
grif091
Super User
Joined: March 26 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: March 27 2009 at 22:29 | IP Logged
|
|
|
The PLC has a slightly greater sensitivity so it could receive a low voltage Insteon signal that the PLM would not. That difference in sensitivity is so small it normally makes no difference unless the Insteon signal is at the very low end of useful signal strength. Since the Group Broadcast is not sent to any particular device, there is no command retry for that message. Try moving the ControLinc plug point closer to the PLM. Assuming that works something between the original plug point for the ControLinc and the PLM is either absorbing the ControLinc signal or putting a lot of noise on that circuit.
With the Group Cleanup Direct being traced by the PLM I don’t see this as a missing link problem. I don’t think that message would have been traced if the PLM was missing a link record.
I noticed that the Group/Button relationship is different between the two ControLincs but that should not affect what the PLM is tracing.
__________________
Lee G
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 27 2009 at 22:56 | IP Logged
|
|
|
The PLM and the PLC are 2 feet apart and the Access Point is piggy backed into the PLM. I’ll try your suggestion in the AM. You’re in NC and NC is playing. Go Tar Heels even though I was a WolfPack student at one time.
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 28 2009 at 10:50 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lee, I plugged the ControLinc into (piggy back) the PLM and had the same results. To see if it had any effect I had changed the button assignments on one but that made no difference. My backups don’t go far enough back to when this DID work. But I believe it started after I did a bunch of linking with a new KPL. That KPL has no links to the ControLincs. There are 3 ControLincs of which 2 of them echo each other while the 3rd has completely different scenarios. It also has the same problem. Meanwhile I’m Triggering on Dev Chg.
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
grif091
Super User
Joined: March 26 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: March 28 2009 at 13:03 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Pete, I just checked my ControLinc using buttons 1,2,3 On and Off, all three sent the Group Broadcast and Group Cleanup Direct which were received by the PLM and traced by PH2. Also plugged the ControLinc directly into the PLM and still showed both Group messages being traced. Did you try pulling the air gap switch on the KPL you mentioned? Standard caution when pressing air gap back to normal position not to press in too far to cause reset. Just had one of those on the Smarthome forum.
The trace you initially posted shows a Group Broadcast being received and traced from a different device so it is not a general problem with the PLM or PH2. Also since two PLMs are doing the same thing it would not point to PLM hardware. Since the PLC traces the Group Broadcast the command is being issued. Seems the only common aspect is that it is happening on all three of your ControLincs. Maybe check the Type entry for the ControLinc to see if anything looks odd with the Type definition. Don’t know of any option that would trace the Group Cleanup Direct but ignore the Group Broadcast message. The Type definition does not seem to correlate either if you can run the same PH2 on the same PC with a PLC and have it work. I think we will learn something new when this is solved. One of those situations where we made an assumption about something or saw something and came to the wrong conclusion about what we saw.
__________________
Lee G
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 28 2009 at 13:27 | IP Logged
|
|
|
I checked the Type and I don’t see anything out of place and I have not played with it. I pulled the air gap on the KPL and tested. Click it back in retested and still no Group Broadcast.
Lee when I 1st notice the problem it showed up in both - all my Motion Sensors plus the ControLincs. That’s why SH replaced the PLM. Since the new PLM has been installed the Motion Sensors are back to working on Group Ins. Remember when I went back to the PLM I had to rebuild the links again that’s why I kind of lean on linking. Very strange….
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
grif091
Super User
Joined: March 26 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: March 28 2009 at 13:48 | IP Logged
|
|
|
When you rebuilt the PLM did you do an Add Min or Add Full. I remember a post a few months back where it was necessary to do an Add Full to solve some problem.
__________________
Lee G
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 28 2009 at 14:04 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Bingo !!!  I remember that post too but thought they were referring to a PLC. I did Add Full then did a Rebuild on the PLM and it worked. Soo I guess it was linking to an extent. The interesting note when I watch it was PH was sending Master and Slave addresses. I don’t recall that on Minimum. If I interpret that correctly that would imply Responder and Controller maybe.
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
grif091
Super User
Joined: March 26 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: March 28 2009 at 14:25 | IP Logged
|
|
|
That would be my guess as well. Been too long ago to be sure but I think I did an Add Full when replacing the PLM that SH initiated. I was not having any problems with the original HL2 enabled PLM but they replaced it anyway, no charge even for mailing the old one back.
We will have to tuck this answer away as you know someone else will eventually see the same thing.
Have you had bad weather yesterday or over night? We had two tornados from the system that went through yesterday which were not forecast. The system that went through your area maybe yesterday will get here later today. Heavy storms and tornados are predicted as possibilities this time.
__________________
Lee G
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 28 2009 at 14:41 | IP Logged
|
|
|
As I remember it was a PLC to PLM conversion and the cut and paste method was originally used and a Add Full had to be performed.
We were slammed all night long.
Edited by BeachBum - March 28 2009 at 20:03
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 10:20 | IP Logged
|
|
|
OK my friend what are these 2 entries as I have no documentation on this kind of entry. These are from an Add Min trace.
TX 02 6F 41 00 01 04 B0 31 FF 31 00
RX ADDID=41 00 01 04 B0 31 FF 31 00 06
I suspect it is an address transfer from PH Database but not a Insteon address.
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
grif091
Super User
Joined: March 26 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 12:16 | IP Logged
|
|
|
I assume this is an Add Min to the PLM and not the PLC. Maybe adding a link record for Insteon address 04.B0.31. The 02 6F is the normal front end with 6F being the command (like 02 62 is used to send Insteon standard message). I don't have the SDK so I don’t know the specific information sequence for a 6F command. Easy to evaluate the 02 62 command but the 02 6F seems to have an extra byte (41) which I cannot evaluate. I may have some information stored away somewhere but the only thing I could find so far is some basic information on the PLC Linked List link database which is unique. The PLM uses a Linear link database with the same format as most other Insteon devices. That makes each link record 8 bytes long (flag,group,address xx.xx.xx,LD1,LD2,LD3) which can be Peek/Poked in the normal way if the PLM is not being used as a host PowerLinc interface. The last 8 bytes of the TX 02 6F are the link record (maybe). The SimpleHomeNet Utility can be used to display a PLM link database, even when the PLM is being used as a host PowerLinc so long as you have another device, like a PLC, for the SHN Utility to interface through. In reading what Dave posted about Add Min versus Add Full, I think Add Min would write a single link record per device into the PLC and that was enough for the PLC to pass in all messages from that device. Apparently the PLM also requires the specific Group number link record as well thus the need for the Add Full. If I can find detail on that specific PLM command I will post additional.
I may be able to determine the record format by looking at all the commands issued during an Add Min or Add Full but I hate to disturb something that ain’t broke.
__________________
Lee G
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 12:47 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks Lee,
To better document this problem these are the things I found. I originally had a working environment then one day I noticed my Motion Sensors were not working. So went into PD mode and discovered the missing Group Broadcast which also affected my ControLincs triggering. The new PLM arrive and I did an Add Min only and then a Rebuild and everything worked except the ControLincs. I suspect something was broken in PH but don’t know why or where.
Now the next question is what broke in the process. When an Add Min is performed on a PLM that has not been cleared some of the Address IDs receive a CTRL NAK.
TX 02 6F 41 00 01 08 27 56 FF 31 00
RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 41 00 01 08 27 56 FF 31 00
I intrepid that to mean either the address space is occupied or the link record is already loaded. If one follows that with an Add Full the all of them return a CTRL NAK. Now when I Clear the PLM Database before I do either of these all entries in the Add Min and Add Full are clean.
TX 02 6F 41 00 01 08 27 56 FF 31 00
RX ADDID=41 00 01 08 27 56 FF 31 00 06
The other interesting note is an Add Full has Master and Slave enties.
TRACE wrote:
Insteon data 'addid=04.B0.31,200,master' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=04.B0.31,203,master' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=04.BB.8F,201,master' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=04.BB.8F,203,master' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=04.D0.45,201,master' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=04.D0.45,203,master' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=07.AD.EE,101,master' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=07.AD.EE,203,master' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.24.F7,1,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.24.F7,2,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.24.F7,3,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.24.F7,4,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.24.F7,5,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.27.56,1,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.27.56,2,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.27.56,3,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.27.56,4,slave' sent to PLC/PLM.
Insteon data 'addid=08.27.56,5,slave' sent to PLC/PLM. |
|
|
From Dave on a similar problem:
Dave wrote:
Go to the "Setup" tab and download the core application, clear the PLC database, and add ID's to the PLC (min). This will fully prep the PLC for use with PowerHome and your devices. |
|
|
So by performing these steps ultimately fixed the problem. It appears somehow the original linkage between PH and the PLM were lost in my case and the Add Full fixed it.
Dave wrote:
| The PLM didn’t have the address of the switches in its internal database so would not have "heard" the commands which would therefore not have fired the trigger to check the links. |
|
|
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
grif091
Super User
Joined: March 26 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 13:34 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Pete, the 02 6F is a Manage ALL-Link Record command used to manage link records in the PLM. The next byte, 0x41 in your post, is update existing or add new Responder (Slave) link record. A 0x40 is update existing or add new Controller (Master) link record. The remaining bytes for both are as described before (flag,group,address xx.xx.xx,LD1,LD2,LD3).
__________________
Lee G
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 14:49 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lee, is that the same as EZBridge Ref. MngLnk ? And what do think causes the CTLR NAK2 ?
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
grif091
Super User
Joined: March 26 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 15:13 | IP Logged
|
|
|
The control flag has the same bit meanings so it probably is the MngLnk. The EZBridge doc I have shows the XML but not the actual 6F command so I can't be 100% positive. I did a Google search on PLM commands and found a site that had a link to a doc that listed the 69 command.
Since the 41 is an "update or add" seems like it cannot be something like adding a duplicate entry or some such. We have seen cases where commands sent to the PLM too close to the previous command have been rejected. Do you have a failure that shows the time stamp of a few commands leading up to and including the one that was rejected? Also not sure what NAK2 means. Don't remember anything but ACK/NAK and a Find across the docs I have did not find a NAK2.
__________________
Lee G
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 15:25 | IP Logged
|
|
|
This is the add full before a clear. If I do a clear no NAKs.
Quote:
2009-03-29 08:58:47.307 TX 02 6F 40 00 C8 04 B0 31 FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:47.325 RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 40 00 C8 04 B0 31 FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:47.584 TX 02 6F 40 00 CB 04 B0 31 FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:47.609 RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 40 00 CB 04 B0 31 FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:47.869 TX 02 6F 40 00 C9 04 BB 8F FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:47.893 RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 40 00 C9 04 BB 8F FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:48.157 TX 02 6F 40 00 CB 04 BB 8F FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:48.177 RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 40 00 CB 04 BB 8F FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:48.436 TX 02 6F 40 00 C9 04 D0 45 FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:48.460 RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 40 00 C9 04 D0 45 FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:48.721 TX 02 6F 40 00 CB 04 D0 45 FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:48.744 RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 40 00 CB 04 D0 45 FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:49.006 TX 02 6F 40 00 65 07 AD EE FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:49.036 RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 40 00 65 07 AD EE FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:49.303 TX 02 6F 40 00 CB 07 AD EE FF 31 00
2009-03-29 08:58:49.329 RX CTLR NAK2=02 6F 40 00 CB 07 AD EE FF 31 00
|
|
|
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
grif091
Super User
Joined: March 26 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 15:42 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Does not look like timing. Maybe the PLM doc is wrong and 40/41 options are "add only" rather than “update or add” which is rejected because of an existing link record for the same device and group number. Sounds plausible since the errors do not happen when the PLM has been cleared beforehand. Could be another difference between the way the PLC worked and the way the PLM works.
__________________
Lee G
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: March 29 2009 at 16:37 | IP Logged
|
|
|
grif091 wrote:
| Could be another difference between the way the PLC worked and the way the PLM works. |
|
|
And that may be why we are seeing a difference with PLM problems. Remember when I brought the PLC online I had no problem. But when Circero and I both brought a PLM online we basically had the same problem.
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
PowerHome Messageboard : PowerHome General
Topic: Missing Group Broadcast
