You are not registered yet. Please click here to register!


 
 
plc storereviewsdownloads
This board is for PLC Related Q&A ONLY. Please DON'T use it for advertising, etc.
 
Try our online PLC Simulator- FREE.  Click here now to try it.

---------->>>>>Get FREE PLC Programming Tips

New Here? Please read this important info!!!


Go Back   PLCS.net - Interactive Q & A > PLCS.net - Interactive Q & A > LIVE PLC Questions And Answers

PLC training tools sale

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 17th, 2019, 08:48 AM   #76
JesperMP
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
Denmark

JesperMP is offline
 
JesperMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Copenhagen.
Posts: 13,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamenges View Post
Have you determined if this is valid yet and, if so, how it is so blazingly fast? If that is accurate it is truly impressive.
No, at this moment I have merely done exactly the same tests as on the other PLCs.
As discussed in previous posts, I suspect that something is off. I suggested that the tests were modified, but until we agree on if/what must be modified all I can do is to keep the tests the same.
Apart from that, the 1515SP seems to be almost exactly half as performant as the 1517. The numbers match with a factor 2 over all the tests. At least this shows that the trigonometry test was done in the same way as on the other PLCs, with or without skewed results. I think that the test that is the most uniform is the bubble sort.

About the blazingly fast, I find that the 1515SP is remarkably performant for such a low price. It seems to be the overall conclusion that the "PLCs" that are based on PC hardware (Beckhoff, CodeSys, 1515SP) are significantly more performant than "classic" PLCs. One of the drawbacks of the 1515SP is the long statup time due to it being PC-based, even though it runs on Linux and not Windows.
__________________
Jesper
See my profile interests for Q&A
  Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2019, 04:35 AM   #77
JesperMP
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
Denmark

JesperMP is offline
 
JesperMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Copenhagen.
Posts: 13,747
A modified test of LD code, done with a Siemens S7-1515SP Open Controller (optimized block access)

Same as test done in post #64, except for tests 2-6 I changed the variables rData1 and rData2 from being TEMPs that are set in code, to INPUT variables with the values being transferred from the calling block. This to make it impossible for the compiler to consider the two variables as constants.

Result: No differences whatsoever.

I am still puzzled that a multiplaction takes longer than a trig function plus multiplication.
__________________
Jesper
See my profile interests for Q&A
  Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2019, 11:39 AM   #78
chiefy
Member
Canada

chiefy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3
1769-L23E-QB1B V20

BitwiseTest: 350ms
BubbleSort: 3408ms
IndexTest: 313ms
MathTest: 758ms
  Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2019, 03:03 AM   #79
mad4x4
Member
United Kingdom

mad4x4 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ST CYrus
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolyur View Post
Interesting... I'm wondering how you would do this test on a controller like Beckhoff where the scan time is specified? Run the code and adjust the scan time until the processor core usage gets close to 100%?


I'd be curious to see the results of ControlLogix vs Beckhoff.

I would have thought that the Beckhoff would be able to "whip the ***" over control logics as you can configure some extremly quick scan rates in the beckhoff.
  Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2019, 09:57 AM   #80
Peter Nachtwey
Member
United States

Peter Nachtwey is offline
 
Peter Nachtwey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver, WA, US
Posts: 6,896
Wouldn't these test cause faults for the scan being too long?
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...." Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon
  Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2019, 10:26 AM   #81
kamenges
Member
United States

kamenges is offline
 
kamenges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brillion, WI
Posts: 3,831
In all the plcs i have used (which are admittedly not that many) the watchdog time is adjustable. In the 1756-L71 I am testing with the watchdog time can be set to a max of 10 seconds. It comes out of the box set to 500 msec.

Keith
  Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2019, 11:34 AM   #82
JesperMP
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
Denmark

JesperMP is offline
 
JesperMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Copenhagen.
Posts: 13,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nachtwey View Post
Wouldn't these test cause faults for the scan being too long?
In Siemens, the max cycle time can be set to 6000 ms. Thats what I did for the tests I have done.
__________________
Jesper
See my profile interests for Q&A
  Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2019, 05:10 AM   #83
Lare
Member
Finland

Lare is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie View Post
After seeing the differences in indexing arrays and ANDing, I think the test should be revised:

Math Test stays the same:
Code:
FOR i:=0 TO 99999 DO
    DINTResult:=(Real1*Real2);
END_FOR;
Indexing Test
Code:
FOR j:=0 TO 9999 DO
  FOR i:=0 TO 9 DO
    DINT1[i]:=DINT2[i];  'Arrays of 10 elements
  END FOR;
END_FOR;
Bitwise Operation
Code:
FOR i:=0 TO 99999 DO
    DINTResult:=i AND 2730; '* Every other bit for 12 bits
END_FOR;

Schneider M340 (BMX P34 2020 Unity Pro)
Math test 849ms
Index test 411ms
Bitwise test 32ms

Schneider M580 (BME P58 1020 Unity Pro)
Math test 702ms
Index test 376ms
Bitwise test 40ms


Schneider M580 (BME P58 2040 Unity Pro)
Math test 696ms
Index test 375ms
Bitwise test 41ms
  Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2019, 07:12 AM   #84
Jkoso
Member
Finland

Jkoso is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Finland
Posts: 22
Code:
BenchTest:=EditCase;

CASE BenchTest OF 
	1: 
		FOR i:=0 TO 99999 DO
	            DINTResult:=REAL_TO_DINT(Real1*Real2);
		END_FOR;
		
	2: 
		FOR j:=0 TO 9999 DO
 		     FOR i:=0 TO 9 DO
    			DINT1[i]:=DINT2[i];  //Arrays of 10 elements
 		     END_FOR;
		END_FOR;
		
	3:
		FOR i:=0 TO 99999 DO
    		    DINTResult:=DWORD_TO_DINT(DINT_TO_DWORD(i) AND dwTest  ); //Every other bit for 12 bits, dwTest is initial value 2730
		END_FOR;
END_CASE;

Omron NX1P2-9024DT1

Math test 8.1ms
Index test 3ms
Bitwise test 5ms

Last edited by Jkoso; June 26th, 2019 at 07:14 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Jump to Live PLC Question and Answer Forum

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mitsubishi PLC died. Twice. JRoss LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 11 January 29th, 2019 09:35 PM
More questions about RSemulator, PLC network, and career path... timcph2008 LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 0 March 8th, 2018 11:04 AM
PLC Update - Back Issues Collection Now Available! Phil Melore LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 11 October 22nd, 2015 02:17 AM
Siemens PLC won't auto-run after power-up Lamboom LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 5 August 19th, 2014 04:32 PM
PC to PLC Protocol TheRixta LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 13 December 17th, 2008 12:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 PM.


.