Peter Nachtwey
Member
1 The Profinet driver code is big and bloated compared to Ethernet/IP. The Profinet driver is a big as all the other Ethernet drivers together. That includes Etherent/IP, FINS, Mitsubishi, Modbus TCP and our own DMCP.
2. Cyclic I/O should/could be fast. About as fast as Etherent/IP and perhaps a little faster. The cyclic I/O is done using raw Ethernet packets. This is very lean and mean which I like for I/O.
3. Acyclic messages are big and bloated. They use RPC or remote procedure calls so there is about 140 bytes of header before getting to the actual data. So far I haven't figured out if very large data requests ( >1536 ) are possible from one read or write.
4. It doesn't look like it is that much different from getting Profibus to work, but Profinet will be much more flexible than Profibus. I can see that the need for Profibus will go down a lot as Profinet grows in popularity.
5. Writing a Profinet driver is much more complicated than writing an Ethernet/IP driver. I know a lot of people thought Ethernet/IP was bad.
The jury is still out. I will update this as I get more info.
2. Cyclic I/O should/could be fast. About as fast as Etherent/IP and perhaps a little faster. The cyclic I/O is done using raw Ethernet packets. This is very lean and mean which I like for I/O.
3. Acyclic messages are big and bloated. They use RPC or remote procedure calls so there is about 140 bytes of header before getting to the actual data. So far I haven't figured out if very large data requests ( >1536 ) are possible from one read or write.
4. It doesn't look like it is that much different from getting Profibus to work, but Profinet will be much more flexible than Profibus. I can see that the need for Profibus will go down a lot as Profinet grows in popularity.
5. Writing a Profinet driver is much more complicated than writing an Ethernet/IP driver. I know a lot of people thought Ethernet/IP was bad.
The jury is still out. I will update this as I get more info.