Ethercat and RMC-8354 Real-Time

[SmileBoB]

Hi all,

My question is simple : Does a RMC-8354 Running LVRT can act as Ethercat Master with one of its two network interfaces ?

++

CLEMESSY SA

[Celine_]

Hi SmileBoB,

This is not possible because the NI RMC-8354 does not support EtherCAT.

Indeed, EtherCAT is a deterministic protocol, any EtherCAT master must utilize a Real-Time OS. When the 8354 is configured for Real-Time, only one of the ethernet ports is addressable. As EtherCAT requires 2 ethernet ports, this will not work.

Let me know if you need further informations.

Best regards,

[SmileBoB]

Hi is there a KB which guarantees your answer ?

Because with LVRT 2011 and NI-Ethercat 2.4.0 driver I can configure my seconde ethernet interface as ethercat under MAX...

[Celine_]

Hi SmileBoB,

As describe in the following KB, you need to use one ethernet port for RT configuration : http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/EF5AB4A11736FA7D862578CA0076EBC2?OpenDocument

Then, you will have only one ethernet port left on your RMC 8354, but EtherCAT needs two ethernet ports. That's why it cannot work.

Best regards,

[SmileBoB]

I don't want to be disrespectful, but I think you should review your knowledge about Ethercat network topology ...

http://www.ni.com/white-paper/7299/en

The master and the last slave in the daisychain network don't need two ethernet interface. The ethercat network is not a ring (like Reflective Memory for example) ....

Moreover, if you're right, it means it's impossible to do ethercat with PXIe-8133, cRIO 9074 etc.... ? let me laugh ...

My question was only to know if the ethernet chipset of the RMC-8354 is ethercat compliant.....

[Celine_]

I guess we have a misunderstanding.

IF an EtherCAT network is wired in ring configuration, it will required two ports on the master device, so that configuration does not fit your needs.

But as I understand it's not your configuration - and you already have the right documentation - so it should be ok if you want to use your device for EtherCAT application.

Thanks for your nice clarification