wilson.laizo

My feedback

  1. 3 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Server » Analytics & Calculations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  2. 12 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Server » Analytics & Calculations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
    wilson.laizo shared this idea  · 
  3. 7 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  PI Server » Asset Framework (AF)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Our use case is the following:
    We use categories to act like filters (or metadata) in order to get the attributes that we want.
    And we have a template that have all the attributes that are possible, as we want to define UOM, point type, etc.
    But, for example, each attribute can be a KPI, KCI, KSI or Optional and we need to filter the attributes by that, for example, only get the attributes marked as KPI. So, we intended to mark those attributes using a category called KPI, KCI, KSI or Optional but this classification could be changed by the user. So, in our case, the Template indicates our Recommended approach while the user could change to better represent his own asset.

    So, as we cannot use Categories for that and we don't have an equivalent "metadata like" way of filtering those attributes, we had to use an inner attribute in order to work with this functionality, but that adds a problem as we cannot (for what I can tell) filter attributes based on a inner attribute value.

    Another problem is that we want to calculate compliance for those, but in the same way, or we first discover if the attribute is of a given type and then look for those compliance's, or (what we did) we create a formula inside of the main attribute for each type (KPI, KCI, KSI, Optional) and then in the formula we check if that attribute is of that type and if it is we calculate, if not, we set "No Result". This approach was recommended by OSIsoft as we needed to do a Rollup of those values and that was the only way to filter it as Rollups also cannot check inner attributes to filter what to rollup.

    So, ideally if the asset is marked as Extendable we would like the possibility to change the category (add/remove) or, at the very least, be able to add other categories so your premise is not broken as all the assets that were created based on the template have everything their parent have, but each asset created can Expand (or Extend) adding additional categories to be a more specialized object.

  4. 5 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  PI Server » Asset Framework (AF)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
    wilson.laizo shared this idea  · 
  5. 125 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    26 comments  ·  PI Connectors » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We understand and acknowledge the importance of this request. We are evaluating how to provide a homogeneous and unified experience for health information across all our connectors.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    I would like to have information's like Number of files processed and Number of Events processed, preferable in the Perfmon to be able to get it using the Perfmon interface (similar to what we have in PI Analysis)

    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  6. 182 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    37 comments  ·  PI Server » Analytics & Calculations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    In response to Stephen Kwan, "Hi Wilson,   Thanks for the info.  I'm c..."
    We had before, but we shouldn't have anymore. We changed the process and every time a new asset is created we Create and Update all PI Point data References and only after that we exclude the attributes we are not using.
     
    We may have PI Points without any values or with a System Digital State, but all PI Points should have been created.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    In response to Stephen Kwan, "Hi Wilson, which version are you using? ..."
    Hi Steve, in my case I'm using 2017R2. I think I already mentioned before but our case is the sheer amount of calculations that is the issue. We have few data flowing, but a lot of calculations and they are mostly rollups.
     
    In fact, in our case one big help would be if we could select the trigger for rollups, right now we may have 100 triggers for a single rollup, but most of the data come at the same time, so if we could chose like only 5 to be triggers it would start faster than what we have now. We are using some "tricks" like excluding attributes that we are not using (not all attributes have values in our case, but they all have tags) but it still takes some time to start.
     
    And in our case our DA is OK and our AF is also OK and not reaching any limit right now.
     
    We already had someone from OSI to come locally and we implemented all the suggestions and it improved a lot but it would still benefit a lot from some sort of Load Balance or Split load between servers. Like I said before, for us a way to link more than one Analysis to the same AF server would be probably the ideal scenario right now.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    In response to Stephen Kwan, "If by adding RAM and CPU provide no sign..."
    Hi Steve, of course I don't know the internal code for PI Analysis, but for example if PI Analysis limits the number of simultaneous calls to a PI server, increasing RAM or CPU would not help necessarily.
     
    For example, in our case RAM only helps the performance up to the point where we are not using 100% of the memory, after that, even if we increase the memory it does not help and we see that our PI Analysis server takes a while to do all the subscriptions (on startup in this example). In our case if multiple servers are subscribing independently, we should see the overall "subscription process" been faster. And I believe the same would happen with the data been processed by the calculation.
     
    Also, in the same example above, our Analysis process don't go over 30%, so even if we add more CPUs, that would not help either.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    In response to John Messinger, "This is most definitely needed. I have a..."
    I do think John's idea is great. In fact, we were expecting it as a first step before a true HA setup. Meaning, the ability to separate the analysis in different servers. I haven't thought on the group idea before, but I do think that it would be great, nowadays we kind of do that using Categories, but with the number of analysis we have it gets really slow overall.
     
    And I understand that OSIsoft implemented HA with Windows Cluster, but that is really not a viable solution for us as our experience with it (in other cases) was not satisfactory as it would change the nodes unexpectedly and that would make our system be unresponsive for a while (given the time it takes to restart the services).

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Stephen, to answer your questions:
    Which version of software are you running?
    A) We are running the latest version of everything (PI AF 2017R2 and Analysis 2017R2)
     
    We fixed a couple of issues that dramatically reduced start time with recent release(s).
    A) Yeah, we know, the previous version wasn't usable. We noticed a lot of improvement on PI System Explorer as well as before it would take too long to even load an Analysis on it giving the amount of attributes we have.
     
    Do you have a lot of missing PI Points in your rollups?
    A) No, we make sure we create all the points. But we had a lot of attributes that would not get a value (its optional manual data), so, we started using the Excluded functionality to remove those and it improved the overall performance as I mentioned above.
     
     
    How often are your rollups being triggered?
    A) Our data flow is pretty slow. Around 2000 assets will have one data point each 10 minutes on average, but the other 18000 usually comes once in a day. And we would like to be able to subscribe to just some of the attributes to generate a rollup, but that is not possible in the current version, Rollups are set to monitor all in event based or you need to change to period, which is not ok to us.
     
    Are you in a situation where you're triggering more often that you think due to the rollups having so many inputs?
    A) We didn't identify any problem with the data flow. As soon as the service start, it kind of behave ok, but we are still in the test phase and the data will start to flow in groups of assets, so, we may have a problem later, but as of now we didn't notice anything. But as stated before, if we could subscribe to just three or four attributes, in our case, that would be actually a better solution as we expect the data to come at the same time.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Stephen, to answer your questions:
    Which version of software are you running?
    A) We are running the latest version of everything (PI AF 2017R2 and Analysis 2017R2)
     
    We fixed a couple of issues that dramatically reduced start time with recent release(s).
    A) Yeah, we know, the previous version wasn't usable. We noticed a lot of improvement on PI System Explorer as well as before it would take too long to even load an Analysis on it giving the amount of attributes we have.
     
    Do you have a lot of missing PI Points in your rollups?
    A) No, we make sure we create all the points. But we had a lot of attributes that would not get a value (its optional manual data), so, we started using the Excluded functionality to remove those and it improved the overall performance as I mentioned above.
     
     
    How often are your rollups being triggered?
    A) Our data flow is pretty slow. Around 2000 assets will have one data point each 10 minutes on average, but the other 18000 usually comes once in a day. And we would like to be able to subscribe to just some of the attributes to generate a rollup, but that is not possible in the current version, Rollups are set to monitor all in event based or you need to change to period, which is not ok to us.
     
    Are you in a situation where you're triggering more often that you think due to the rollups having so many inputs?
    A) We didn't identify any problem with the data flow. As soon as the service start, it kind of behave ok, but we are still in the test phase and the data will start to flow in groups of assets, so, we may have a problem later, but as of now we didn't notice anything. But as stated before, if we could subscribe to just three or four attributes, in our case, that would be actually a better solution as we expect the data to come at the same time.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Stephen, to answer your questions:
    Which version of software are you running?
    A) We are running the latest version of everything (PI AF 2017R2 and Analysis 2017R2)
     
    We fixed a couple of issues that dramatically reduced start time with recent release(s).
    A) Yeah, we know, the previous version wasn't usable. We noticed a lot of improvement on PI System Explorer as well as before it would take too long to even load an Analysis on it giving the amount of attributes we have.
     
    Do you have a lot of missing PI Points in your rollups?
    A) No, we make sure we create all the points. But we had a lot of attributes that would not get a value (its optional manual data), so, we started using the Excluded functionality to remove those and it improved the overall performance as I mentioned above.
     
     
    How often are your rollups being triggered?
    A) Our data flow is pretty slow. Around 2000 assets will have one data point each 10 minutes on average, but the other 18000 usually comes once in a day. And we would like to be able to subscribe to just some of the attributes to generate a rollup, but that is not possible in the current version, Rollups are set to monitor all in event based or you need to change to period, which is not ok to us.
     
    Are you in a situation where you're triggering more often that you think due to the rollups having so many inputs?
    A) We didn't identify any problem with the data flow. As soon as the service start, it kind of behave ok, but we are still in the test phase and the data will start to flow in groups of assets, so, we may have a problem later, but as of now we didn't notice anything. But as stated before, if we could subscribe to just three or four attributes, in our case, that would be actually a better solution as we expect the data to come at the same time.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Stephen, to answer your questions:
    Which version of software are you running?
    A) We are running the latest version of everything (PI AF 2017R2 and Analysis 2017R2)
     
    We fixed a couple of issues that dramatically reduced start time with recent release(s).
    A) Yeah, we know, the previous version wasn't usable. We noticed a lot of improvement on PI System Explorer as well as before it would take too long to even load an Analysis on it giving the amount of attributes we have.
     
    Do you have a lot of missing PI Points in your rollups?
    A) No, we make sure we create all the points. But we had a lot of attributes that would not get a value (its optional manual data), so, we started using the Excluded functionality to remove those and it improved the overall performance as I mentioned above.
     
     
    How often are your rollups being triggered?
    A) Our data flow is pretty slow. Around 2000 assets will have one data point each 10 minutes on average, but the other 18000 usually comes once in a day. And we would like to be able to subscribe to just some of the attributes to generate a rollup, but that is not possible in the current version, Rollups are set to monitor all in event based or you need to change to period, which is not ok to us.
     
    Are you in a situation where you're triggering more often that you think due to the rollups having so many inputs?
    A) We didn't identify any problem with the data flow. As soon as the service start, it kind of behave ok, but we are still in the test phase and the data will start to flow in groups of assets, so, we may have a problem later, but as of now we didn't notice anything. But as stated before, if we could subscribe to just three or four attributes, in our case, that would be actually a better solution as we expect the data to come at the same time.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Stephen, to answer your questions:
    Which version of software are you running?
    A) We are running the latest version of everything (PI AF 2017R2 and Analysis 2017R2)
     
    We fixed a couple of issues that dramatically reduced start time with recent release(s).
    A) Yeah, we know, the previous version wasn't usable. We noticed a lot of improvement on PI System Explorer as well as before it would take too long to even load an Analysis on it giving the amount of attributes we have.
     
    Do you have a lot of missing PI Points in your rollups?
    A) No, we make sure we create all the points. But we had a lot of attributes that would not get a value (its optional manual data), so, we started using the Excluded functionality to remove those and it improved the overall performance as I mentioned above.
     
     
    How often are your rollups being triggered?
    A) Our data flow is pretty slow. Around 2000 assets will have one data point each 10 minutes on average, but the other 18000 usually comes once in a day. And we would like to be able to subscribe to just some of the attributes to generate a rollup, but that is not possible in the current version, Rollups are set to monitor all in event based or you need to change to period, which is not ok to us.
     
    Are you in a situation where you're triggering more often that you think due to the rollups having so many inputs?
    A) We didn't identify any problem with the data flow. As soon as the service start, it kind of behave ok, but we are still in the test phase and the data will start to flow in groups of assets, so, we may have a problem later, but as of now we didn't notice anything. But as stated before, if we could subscribe to just three or four attributes, in our case, that would be actually a better solution as we expect the data to come at the same time.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Stephen, to answer your questions:
    Which version of software are you running?
    A) We are running the latest version of everything (PI AF 2017R2 and Analysis 2017R2)
     
    We fixed a couple of issues that dramatically reduced start time with recent release(s).
    A) Yeah, we know, the previous version wasn't usable. We noticed a lot of improvement on PI System Explorer as well as before it would take too long to even load an Analysis on it giving the amount of attributes we have.
     
    Do you have a lot of missing PI Points in your rollups?
    A) No, we make sure we create all the points. But we had a lot of attributes that would not get a value (its optional manual data), so, we started using the Excluded functionality to remove those and it improved the overall performance as I mentioned above.
     
     
    How often are your rollups being triggered?
    A) Our data flow is pretty slow. Around 2000 assets will have one data point each 10 minutes on average, but the other 18000 usually comes once in a day. And we would like to be able to subscribe to just some of the attributes to generate a rollup, but that is not possible in the current version, Rollups are set to monitor all in event based or you need to change to period, which is not ok to us.
     
    Are you in a situation where you're triggering more often that you think due to the rollups having so many inputs?
    A) We didn't identify any problem with the data flow. As soon as the service start, it kind of behave ok, but we are still in the test phase and the data will start to flow in groups of assets, so, we may have a problem later, but as of now we didn't notice anything. But as stated before, if we could subscribe to just three or four attributes, in our case, that would be actually a better solution as we expect the data to come at the same time.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Stephen, to answer your questions:
    Which version of software are you running?
    A) We are running the latest version of everything (PI AF 2017R2 and Analysis 2017R2)
     
    We fixed a couple of issues that dramatically reduced start time with recent release(s).
    A) Yeah, we know, the previous version wasn't usable. We noticed a lot of improvement on PI System Explorer as well as before it would take too long to even load an Analysis on it giving the amount of attributes we have.
     
    Do you have a lot of missing PI Points in your rollups?
    A) No, we make sure we create all the points. But we had a lot of attributes that would not get a value (its optional manual data), so, we started using the Excluded functionality to remove those and it improved the overall performance as I mentioned above.
     
     
    How often are your rollups being triggered?
    A) Our data flow is pretty slow. Around 2000 assets will have one data point each 10 minutes on average, but the other 18000 usually comes once in a day. And we would like to be able to subscribe to just some of the attributes to generate a rollup, but that is not possible in the current version, Rollups are set to monitor all in event based or you need to change to period, which is not ok to us.
     
    Are you in a situation where you're triggering more often that you think due to the rollups having so many inputs?
    A) We didn't identify any problem with the data flow. As soon as the service start, it kind of behave ok, but we are still in the test phase and the data will start to flow in groups of assets, so, we may have a problem later, but as of now we didn't notice anything. But as stated before, if we could subscribe to just three or four attributes, in our case, that would be actually a better solution as we expect the data to come at the same time.

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    In our case this is also critical. We have a database with 600 assets right now and each asset have around 14 rollup calculations. With this our server is using 30GB of memory and takes 1,5 hour to start and 7 hours to finish the first recalculation (after it starts).

    With the help of Rory (from OSIsoft) we reduced that to 30 minutes and 1,5 hours respectively using the Excluded functionality to remove some of the Rollup triggers (as there's no way to select individual triggers for Rollups) but this was just a test server. In our production server we will have 20000 assets, which will make the usage of Analysis for anything else very difficult.

    So, In our case ideally we would want to load balance all of those Rollup to split the load on different servers (this could be set by category or when you create the analysis) and one server to Event frames, another one for regular analysis, etc.

    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  7. 8 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  PI Connectors » UFL  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for reaching out. We can extend the connector to support the NTLM authentication, which falls under Windows Authentication. Would it meet your needs?

    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    In my case, yes.

    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  8. 21 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  PI Connectors » UFL  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    I’m not sure why this would be needed. In the UFL connector you need to specify the name of the tag that you write to. And if that tag already exists, it will write to it. If that tag does not exist, then the connector would create that tag with your desired tag name. Why would you want the connector not to create that tag?

    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  9. 3 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  PI Vision » User Experience  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo commented  · 
  10. 36 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  PI Developer Technologies » PI Web API  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Right now we are trying to find some problems with our current WebAPI 2017R2 and without these it's been pretty hard. I can get some of the values looking at the Debug/Audit logs, but it takes a lot of time. Things like Average response time, Number of calls per second/minute, total number of calls, failed requests, maybe a different counter for each different type of call (POST, GET, BATCH, etc).

    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  11. 14 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  PI Server » Analytics & Calculations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  12. 29 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Correction to earlier comment by Matt Ziegler: This idea was not fulfilled in PI Integrator for Business Analytics 2018 release. This idea is currently not planned for a future release. If you have a use case and desired behavior for a particular writer and want to discuss further, please comment below or email me. Thank you!

    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  13. 52 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  PI Connectors » New PI Connector request  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    From this item description it looks like the major pain point with existing RDBMS interface is providing configuration information (to the tags and interface). I would like to understand more if the request behind the connector is to solely minimize providing configuration information to the existing interface and tags?

    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  14. 24 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  PI Connectors » OPC UA  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  15. 30 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  PI Server » Analytics & Calculations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  16. 52 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  PI Server » Asset Framework (AF)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  17. 124 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    13 comments  ·  PI Server » Analytics & Calculations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  18. 103 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    RESEARCHING / EVALUATING  ·  10 comments  ·  PI Server » Asset Framework (AF)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  19. 41 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    RESEARCHING / EVALUATING  ·  12 comments  ·  PI Server » Asset Framework (AF)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo supported this idea  · 
  20. 30 votes
    Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION  ·  2 comments  ·  PI Server » Asset Framework (AF)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    wilson.laizo commented  · 

    Microsoft have a new option now with Managed SQL Servers that would probably be easier implemented (as it's just a SQL Server that MS manages the SO).
    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sql-database/sql-database-managed-instance

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base

Posted ideas will have one of the following statuses.
Full definition of these statuses can be found on the Home Page.
No status
NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION
RESEARCHING/EVALUATING
DECLINED
PLANNED
STARTED/IN DEVELOPMENT
IN BETA
COMPLETED