Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I did it! What the heck do I do now?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Charles_cz
    replied
    It's customer/family. 😊 I did not test it enough to be certain. I turned all lights ON and OFF just couple of times but I think it got delayed on specific section of recessed lights. It might have been coincidence. Definitely more testing is need. πŸ‘

    Leave a comment:


  • simplextech
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles_cz View Post
    That sounds like a plan. Thanks. :-) I will report back. It is customers house but I should be able to do some troubleshooting early next week.
    Oh the fun of customers

    If it's a couple switches that are "acting slow" it could be a routing issue with them specifically or worst case they could be bad switches. You tipped me off when you made the mention of the of "see if that delay is every time on the same switch".

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles_cz
    replied
    That sounds like a plan. Thanks. :-) I will report back. It is customers house but I should be able to do some troubleshooting early next week.

    Leave a comment:


  • simplextech
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles_cz View Post
    It is i7 CPU with 8gb RAM on win10 PRO.. I don't think the hardware is the issue. That should be more than enough and there is nothing else running at this point.
    I will try to do more testing to see if that delay is every time on the same switch etc. I did not really mess with that much.
    One switch? Start the test group small and add to it and when it starts being very slow note the switch that is having a problem, remove it from your event/test and continue and record any other slow switches. Then go back to the "slow" switches and perform a full optimize on that individual switch. Then wash, rinse, repeat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles_cz
    replied
    It is i7 CPU with 8gb RAM on win10 PRO.. I don't think the hardware is the issue. That should be more than enough and there is nothing else running at this point.
    I will try to do more testing to see if that delay is every time on the same switch etc. I did not really mess with that much.

    Leave a comment:


  • simplextech
    replied
    What type of system is HomeSeer running on? CPU/Memory?

    The leaving some on and the 15/20 second delay is not normal though. Things won't be missed if other things are running but "should" be added to the queue by which they will be delayed but the queue should process much quicker than what you are reporting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles_cz
    replied
    Well, there is a room with 15 switches in this house. It's basement rec room. I tried to turn all switches on and off using Set All Devices in EasyTrigger without any delay. What would happen is that lights would start turning OFF one by one as expected but then it would stop leaving 2 or 4 switched still ON. After 15 or 20 seconds delay (just guessing) the rest would turn OFF. I would expect them to turn off one by one with somewhat consistent rate.

    Not sure how to troubleshoot what causes this delay and I did not try it anymore as I thought it was limitation of the system. That said if the system stalls like that and everything is done in a series it will delay everything else, right? Conditions like "if the switch has been of exactly for 2 min" can be missed if it falls within this 15-20 secs pause.

    I have fully optimized the network and switches (HS-WS200+) are pretty close to z-wave interface. I was going to try to add a little bit of delay between turning off each device to see if that will improve things.

    Is that delay sign of some possible problem outside of z-wave or Homeseer limitation?

    Leave a comment:


  • simplextech
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles_cz View Post
    Thanks for the info. I realize I can't do that and expect all turn off at the same time. Also it looks like sending too many requests can really overload the system. I tried to set group of lights to 0 (off) and On using EasyTrigger and the system really struggled to catch up with everything.


    What do you mean "struggled"? Z-Wave is serial so the commands are issued one by one in a series not in parallel. It doesn't matter what issues the commands such as EasyTrigger or another script/tool it will still be serial. The protocols currently that are designed with this functionality of simultaneous on/off of groups of lighting are Insteon and Lutron. Some Wifi Lighting like LIFX have a group broadcast functionality although I have not tested with more than half a dozen bulbs so I can't tell what the effects would be in a larger group. Hue has grouping and uses ZLL (not Zigbee ZHA) which also supports a grouped scene but the last I tested it had the popcorn effect in large groups but it may have improved as I no longer run Hue bulbs so I can't tell you current status.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles_cz
    replied
    Thanks for the info. I realize I can't do that and expect all turn off at the same time. Also it looks like sending too many requests can really overload the system. I tried to set group of lights to 0 (off) and On using EasyTrigger and the system really struggled to catch up with everything.

    Originally posted by Simplex Technology View Post

    Note of caution. Z-Wave is a serial communication. If you have 20 switches they WILL NOT all come on at exactly the same time. With that many lights there will be a noticeable effect of timing between lights. This is commonly referred to as the "popcorn effect".

    Leave a comment:


  • simplextech
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles_cz View Post
    That's good to hear..

    I have another question that comes from me not understanding everything yet.

    For larger projects where we are going to need two Z-wave interfaces - does it matter how devices are divided between them?

    Let's say I have big room with 20 switches. I will want to turn all of them ON at one event. Will there be difference processing speed if I have all 20 switches on one Z-wave interface vs 10 switches on one and other 10 switches on the other one?

    It might be important for planning if there is significant difference.

    Any idea?

    Note of caution. Z-Wave is a serial communication. If you have 20 switches they WILL NOT all come on at exactly the same time. With that many lights there will be a noticeable effect of timing between lights. This is commonly referred to as the "popcorn effect".

    Leave a comment:


  • brientim
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles_cz View Post
    brientim, so you are suggesting that it would more efficient if processed by one a-wave interface? Just want to make sure I got it right.
    Yes, that is correct. The mesh and routing will be tightened and therefore it should produce the best results.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles_cz
    replied
    brientim, so you are suggesting that it would more efficient if processed by one a-wave interface? Just want to make sure I got it right.

    Leave a comment:


  • brientim
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles_cz View Post
    That's good to hear..

    I have another question that comes from me not understanding everything yet.

    For larger projects where we are going to need two Z-wave interfaces - does it matter how devices are divided between them?

    Let's say I have big room with 20 switches. I will want to turn all of them ON at one event. Will there be difference processing speed if I have all 20 switches on one Z-wave interface vs 10 switches on one and other 10 switches on the other one?

    It might be important for planning if there is significant difference.

    Any idea?

    That is a simple question but not simple to answer with complete certainty.

    Simple the processing of the event will be linear and therefore, if they are divided on separate z-wave networks you might see a difference but whether or not this would be significant to cause you concern cannot be answered.

    Given your scenario, I would plan of grouping the network based of physical location as this enables improvement in the meshed network, number of hops and may lead to placing the second network in a completely different location either on a z-net or a z-net like configured devices. For example one at either end of the building or one on different floors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles_cz
    replied
    That's good to hear..

    I have another question that comes from me not understanding everything yet.

    For larger projects where we are going to need two Z-wave interfaces - does it matter how devices are divided between them?

    Let's say I have big room with 20 switches. I will want to turn all of them ON at one event. Will there be difference processing speed if I have all 20 switches on one Z-wave interface vs 10 switches on one and other 10 switches on the other one?

    It might be important for planning if there is significant difference.

    Any idea?


    Leave a comment:


  • rprade
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles_cz View Post
    OK.. Can I just add another Smart Stick to same computer? I just tried it on my test system. It created new network. I have added new switch.
    It seems to work.

    Am I missing something?


    I assume Z-net would allow me to place it to different location than my current PC. Is there any other difference? Am I asking for problems by using too Z-sticks or is it essentially same thing as adding Z-net?


    Click image for larger version

Name:	SS_Test.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	44.5 KB
ID:	1297897
    I agree 2 SmartStick+ interfaces would not be a problem. I would probably put one on a USB extension to avoid the (very slight) possibility of problems with two RF transceivers being within an inch or so of one another. While I doubt this could cause a problem, but I don’t know how Z-Wave implements traffic control. In the off chance that one is transmitting while the other is receiving, the transmitter of one could swamp the receiver of the other. I have 2 Z-Nets about 6 feet apart and it has not been an issue.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X