zigbee???
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 17 May 2010 19:56 D Yuniskis wrote: > Hi Joerg, > >>>>>> I don't know all the details because I just let the mfg's software >>>>>> figure that out. I believe it's DHCP. Essentially you plug them in >>>>>> and after a few seconds the printers are being recognized. Once >>>>>> after some >>>>> >>>>> But how do you *reference* them? I.e., how do you "pick" >>>>> which printer you want to talk to? (since their names/addresses >>>>> aren't "constant") >>>> >>>> They are mapped to always the same names. One is always "HP Laser >>>> 5L", the other is always "Brother MFC7820N" and so on. That's how >>>> they show up in the print menu on any program. >>> >>> Ah, OK. So, if you had *two* of a particular printer, there >>> is no way to tell them apart (?) (i.e., in a large business) >> >> Sure you can. I accepted the default names because there's only one >> each. But you could also name one Alpha, the next one Bravo, or >> whatever. Or HP5L_Office, HP5L_Lab. > > So, it gives you some way of *naming* them? > > I.e., if I you went out tomorrow and bought *two* MORE > LJ5L's and plugged both of them in at the same time, > how would they appear in your "printers list"? How would > you know which is A and which B? > Control Panel -> Printers and Faxes -> right-click on the Printer where you wish to change the name -> Type in a name that sounds cool. >>>>>> Now they all show up in the printer selection and you just pick >>>>>> the one you want. But I didn't give them names like you did :-) >>>>> >>>>> I'm still unsure how you know which printer you are talking to. :< >>>>> My UN*X and Sun boxes need (want) name/IP addresses. So, if I let >>>>> the devices take their IP addresses from a DHCP server, then >>>>> *I* don't know what they are from one boot to the next... >>>> >>>> Maybe Windows is better in that respect :-) >>> >>> Windows broadcasts "device names" and expects "folks" to notice >>> those broadcasts. I.e., it can't find your printer until your >>> printer says "Hi, I'm here! My name is..." >> >> But what's wrong with that? This way if it doesn't answer a light may >> come on in your head such as "Oh, yes, I serviced it yesterday and >> probably forgot to turn it back on". > > It doesn't scale well. Imagine 500 nodes all announcing > themselves to the world *periodically* -- even if no one > cares about them! And, everyone has to remember who has announced > themselves (or, force the user to wait for a cycle before > you know who/what's available) > I am not an IT guy but at least here in the office that doesn't seem to happen. The main router is under my desk on a shelf I built for it. When nobody is working I can't see traffic on the LAN. >>> By contrast, I name everything explicitly (i.e., I can >>> always find my web server or file server using its IP) >>> and talk *to* them (instead of waiting for them to tell >>> me they are available). >> >> I don't want to talk to them before they are available. Else you'll >> have print jobs hanging in the queue forever and when in a rush that's >> not good. I'd rather see that a printer has reported for duty and >> _then_ send a job to it. After all, that's how the whole military >> works, once a soldier reaches his station he must report to the >> sergeant that he did :-) > > But the same naming mechanism is used for machines as well. > And, just because something announces itself as "available", > doesn't mean it will *still* be available when you use it. > Of course meantime a major earthquake could have happened or a volcano might have erupted underneath that printer :-) >>> Imagine if you had to wait for google.com to tell you >>> "I'm here (in case you want to access me)", etc. >> >> I don't see anything wrong on a LAN. In fact, it's good. If the >> printer doesn't show that means something electrical must be broken. > > MS protocols aren't used on the 'net because they don't scale. > There's be nothing but hundreds of thousands of announcements > (which have to be BROADCAST since you have no idea who might > want to reference a particular name, etc.) > > Even MS realized their folly when they belatedly added > support for the TCP/IP protocols. > > Different for SOHO applications in which you can eliminate the > need for a name server, etc. > Well, ok, for a company the size of Dupont or Ford this might not be so good. But here it simply works. >>> When I build a new machine, I go through each piece of software >>> that was on the *old* machine and ask myself: >>> - do I want to keep this? >>> - do I want to *upgrade* this? >>> - do I want to abandon this? >>> >>> I record detailed notes about each installation (what got installed, >>> where in the filesystem it resides, any tweeks I had to do to >>> menus, authorization codes, etc.). So, if I want to build a new >>> machine, I know what steps to follow. >>> >>> (often the order of installs makes a difference -- <frown> -- so >>> I keep track of what works... and *why* if I can sort that out!) >> >> Looks like we are very similar in that respect. The directory pattern >> is the same on all computers here, except that many softwares are only >> installed on one because of license restrictions. Each computer also >> has its own manila folder with the manuals, notes, disks and so on in >> there. If there's a problem I turn around on my chair, open a file >> hanger drawer and pull the respective file. > > I have been trying to separate functionality between machines. > Just too damn hard to keep a (Windows) machine running when you > have a boatload of different applications on it. Things like > DirectX always seem to get wonky based on who installs first, > etc. > > (I think Windows remembers too much state whereas other OS's > rediscover things each time they run) > Yes, that's a problem. Although again, for small offices like mine it doesn't seem to be an issue. I use hibernate to shut down PCs and they would have to become hopelessly clogged over a few weeks. But they don't. > I've discarded (after scanning) almost all of my manuals to > save space. Aside from service manuals, most of the stuff that > I might need I can usually find online (e.g., "What's error 50?"). > > I used to keep my logs in bound books. But, that was hard to > maintain. Build a new machine, have to write a whole new book?? > > So, now I keep each machine's log on the machine itself. > Of course, if the machine dies, the log is inaccessible. > So, I push a copy onto my FTP server each time I make a change > to it (this is a weak link as there is nothing to force me to > do this :< ). > > When I build a new machine, first thing I do is retrieve the > log from FTP server for whichever machine is closest in > personality to the one I am building. > > <shrug> I wouldn't recommend this approach to larger businesses. > But, for me, it is a good balance between recordkeeping and > efficiency (I can't afford the time to *be* an IT department!) Larger businesses are actually going paperless. Well, some. I have as well but I can't part with my old databooks and I will never trust manufacturers to keep legacy datasheets because mostly they don't. So those 10ft of shelf space in the hallway must be mine, and my wife knows that. She stopped asking for it :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 18 May 2010 00:45 Joerg wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > Joerg wrote: > >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>> Joerg wrote: > >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>> D Yuniskis wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Michael, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>>>>> If I can scrape up the $100 before they others are gone, I'd prefer a > >>>>>>> newer and faster server that draws less power. :) > >>>>>> Why? :> Is there a reason you *need* a "server" instead of > >>>>>> a regular desktop machine? I.e., I only run my servers > >>>>>> because I want long term reliability (power supplies and > >>>>>> spindles). Most of my regular work I do on consumer > >>>>>> grade machines. Servers tend to get reliability at the > >>>>>> expense of noise and size. :< > >>>>> The server can go into a closet with the other network hardware, > >>>>> cable modem and netwoerk switch hardware. It free up desk space where I > >>>>> work on computers, as well. ... > >>>> And makes your electric meter really spin up :-) > >>> > >>> And? > >>> > >> Oh yeah, I forgot, it just comes out of the wall outlet so it's free :-) > > > > No. 'And' means I can work faster from a local server. The quicker > > I finish what I'm working , the sooner it gets shut down. Without a > > dedicated server, files are scattered over hard drives, CD-ROM, DVD & > > USB sticks all over the place. I may have five computers up to find > > what I need. I also want to run a real NNTP server to allow me to > > filter out some idiots and countries before they ever hit my computer. > > > > That can also be done by a non server-grade PC, they usually use less > electricity. Not all servers are energy hogs. The main difference is redundant power supplies and cooling fans to improve reliability. The other difference is the case. Rack mounted to keep them and the cabling in its place while allowing easy access for service or upgrades. Some gaming computers have a 1 kW power supply. You can run multiple commercial servers on less power. > > Would you like to compare electric usage? > > > > WRT my file server, yes, anytime. Hint: It runs on a wee 12V line. I'm talking the total usage for your home & business. My bill has run around $50 for the last few months. There is at least one computer on, around the clock. At times, there are five or more for hours at a time. If you can get by with what you have, that's great, but I have close to 500 CD-ROMs full of driver software, and around 120 GB of drivers and other information scattered across a bunch of older hard drives. Also, a server doesn't have to run 24/7 for my needs. I generally only spend some time, two or three days a week working on old computers. Your image of a server is a full rack with a dedicated 30 240 VAC service. Mine is a rack mount cased computer that draws about the same as an average desktop computer. The HP ProLiant DL140 I posted a link to has a single 325 W power supply, which is smaller than a lot of desktop computers. For one thing, servers don't need fancy video cards that can double the power requirements. Some have redundant supplies, but can run on a single supply. Server power supplies are usually better designed, and more efficient than the $6 supply shipped with a new desktop. If they weren't, servers would drop like flies. It would cost a lot more to cool a data center, and require larger backup power sources. Servers don't need large and power hungry monitors. They don't need chrome bumpers or tail fins, either. They are designed to do a job reliably, and efficiently -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Nico Coesel on 18 May 2010 04:01 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Joerg wrote: >> >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> > Joerg wrote: >> >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> >>> Joerg wrote: >> >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> >>>>> D Yuniskis wrote: >> >>>>>> Hi Michael, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> >>>> [...] >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> If I can scrape up the $100 before they others are gone, I'd prefer a >> >>>>>>> newer and faster server that draws less power. :) >> >>>>>> Why? :> Is there a reason you *need* a "server" instead of >> >>>>>> a regular desktop machine? I.e., I only run my servers >> >>>>>> because I want long term reliability (power supplies and >> >>>>>> spindles). Most of my regular work I do on consumer >> >>>>>> grade machines. Servers tend to get reliability at the >> >>>>>> expense of noise and size. :< >> >>>>> The server can go into a closet with the other network hardware, >> >>>>> cable modem and netwoerk switch hardware. It free up desk space where I >> >>>>> work on computers, as well. ... >> >>>> And makes your electric meter really spin up :-) >> >>> >> >>> And? >> >>> >> >> Oh yeah, I forgot, it just comes out of the wall outlet so it's free :-) >> > >> > No. 'And' means I can work faster from a local server. The quicker >> > I finish what I'm working , the sooner it gets shut down. Without a >> > dedicated server, files are scattered over hard drives, CD-ROM, DVD & >> > USB sticks all over the place. I may have five computers up to find >> > what I need. I also want to run a real NNTP server to allow me to >> > filter out some idiots and countries before they ever hit my computer. >> > >> >> That can also be done by a non server-grade PC, they usually use less >> electricity. > > > Not all servers are energy hogs. The main difference is redundant >power supplies and cooling fans to improve reliability. The other >difference is the case. Rack mounted to keep them and the cabling in its >place while allowing easy access for service or upgrades. > > Some gaming computers have a 1 kW power supply. You can run multiple >commercial servers on less power. > > > >> > Would you like to compare electric usage? >> > >> >> WRT my file server, yes, anytime. Hint: It runs on a wee 12V line. > > > I'm talking the total usage for your home & business. My bill has >run around $50 for the last few months. There is at least one computer >on, around the clock. At times, there are five or more for hours at a >time. If you can get by with what you have, that's great, but I have >close to 500 CD-ROMs full of driver software, and around 120 GB of >drivers and other information scattered across a bunch of older hard >drives. Also, a server doesn't have to run 24/7 for my needs. I >generally only spend some time, two or three days a week working on old >computers. Your image of a server is a full rack with a dedicated 30 >240 VAC service. Mine is a rack mount cased computer that draws about >the same as an average desktop computer. > > > The HP ProLiant DL140 I posted a link to has a single 325 W power >supply, which is smaller than a lot of desktop computers. For one thing, >servers don't need fancy video cards that can double the power >requirements. Some have redundant supplies, but can run on a single >supply. Server power supplies are usually better designed, and more >efficient than the $6 supply shipped with a new desktop. If they >weren't, servers would drop like flies. It would cost a lot more to >cool a data center, and require larger backup power sources. > > Servers don't need large and power hungry monitors. They don't need >chrome bumpers or tail fins, either. They are designed to do a job >reliably, and efficiently Amen to that. Seriously. Now where on the subject of electricity usage: anyone knows how much his refrigerator uses? A couple of months ago I found myself in the refrigerator department of a white goods store. The average consumption is about 300kWh per year (I'm talking about a small European size refrigerator). That is about 10% of my total electricity usage! -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: JosephKK on 18 May 2010 06:26 On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:03:37 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >Hi Joerg, > >Joerg wrote: >> Nope. We tend to use such monies in more useful ways. For example as a >> donation to Guide Dogs for the Blind, after getting a trainee dog that >> had to be realeased because of a medical condition and that my wife then >> got through the therapy dog test. Now the two are serving Alzheimer > >The training that guide dogs undergo is *amazing*! >Also, the relationships they have with their "masters" (:<) >is "complicated". Folks often think it's on a par with >that of "dog and owner" and end to forget that these >are *service* animals. I.e., if your *dog* (pet) "does something >wrong" (misbehaves) it's an "inconvenience"; if your GUIDE DOG >screws up, it could be your *life*! :-/ Yes. Constructive disobedience is (one of?) the last and usually most difficult (and most important) for them to master. High washout rate. > >> patients (wife went to training yesterday, with dog, also costs a fee), >> nursing homes, schools, libraries and so on. There is no monetary ROI >> but it's rewarding in many other ways. >> >> Now I don't write this to brag, just so that (hopefully) someone reads >> it and thinks about doing something similar. Tons of opportunities. > >Even a donation to pay for *food* for the animal while >in training, etc. can make a difference! (costs a fair >bit of effort to train a guide dog. they aren't like >"widgets" that you can mass produce...) > >Kudos to you and your wife for "making a difference"!
From: JosephKK on 18 May 2010 06:30
On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:06:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Nico Coesel wrote: >> Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 10:29:08 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Charlie E. wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>>>> IIRC, Jennic has a development kit and modules that are not too >>>>>> expensive, like $500 for the dev kit... >>>>>> >>>>> Hmm, no pricing on the site: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.jennic.com/products/modules/jn5148_modules >>>>> >>>>> But it's just bare modules. When designing I don't really need that and >>>>> $500 just for home automation will raise a flag with SWMBO, just like a >>>>> $500 handbag would with me :-) >>>> Cheapskate! You mean your wife has no Coach purse? >>>> >>> Nope. We tend to use such monies in more useful ways. For example as a >> >> OTOH buying a bag helps a few kids in Asia to fill their bellies. >> > >Sending money to an organization where you can be sure that >80% of >donations make it to the recipients in the form of food and medication >helps a lot more. I am a bit torn at that level. Propping up overpopulation (more than the relevant economy can provide for) strikes me as an error, and poor ethics. |