1 / 25

PS Complex Control Software Renovation Working Group (PSCCSR)

PS Complex Control Software Renovation Working Group (PSCCSR). Results & Proposal. Stephane Deghaye (AB/CO) on behalf of E. Roux, E. Hatziangeli, G. Kruk, J-L. Sanchez Alvarez, M. Benedikt, R. Steerenberg, S. Pasinelli. Overview. Working Group Objectives Requirements - What Services?

kamran
Download Presentation

PS Complex Control Software Renovation Working Group (PSCCSR)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PS Complex Control Software Renovation Working Group(PSCCSR) Results & Proposal Stephane Deghaye (AB/CO) on behalf of E. Roux, E. Hatziangeli, G. Kruk, J-L. Sanchez Alvarez, M. Benedikt, R. Steerenberg, S. Pasinelli AB/CO Technical Committee

  2. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  3. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  4. Working Group Objectives From Strategy for PS complex control software renovation Working Group Mandate, M. Benedikt, E. Hatziangeli, R. Steerenberg. • Summarise the PS complex requirements for Core control software including equipment control and applications. • Evaluate the application of the present LSA control system. • Drafted a proposal for an adaptation of LSA to comply with the requirements of the PS complex. • Develop an alternative proposal based on the existing PS control philosophy. • Compare both solutions in terms of requested functionality coverage, quality of software (stability, performance, ergonomics), support, operational efficiency, cost of impl./ long-term maint. (P&M) & impact on non-generic app. (dev., maint., support, manpower…) AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  5. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  6. What Services? AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  7. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  8. Solution Evaluation - LSA • Presentation of LSA • Current features of LSA core • Standard applications (Trim editor, EquipState…) • Good basis for parameter control • Needs modifications (top-down & bottom-up) • GUI philosophy not suitable (choose action  select GUI  select device) • Lack of acquisition & statuses AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  9. Solution Evaluation - PS • Presentation of Java/XMotif PS system • Generic applications • Configuration tools • GUIs fit user requirements (acquisitions…) • Some parts have become obscure • Performance & Scalability problems • Low-level services only and difficult to extend AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  10. Solution Evaluation - Conclusions • LSA: good basis but modif. needed. • LSA: Big area of requirements not covered. • PSA: Look & feel fit the needs. • PSA: performance & scalability problems • PSA: obscure & obsolete parts • Injector Control Architecture AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  11. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  12. Injector Control Architecture AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  13. Component View • Reuse CO components • Modif. to fit Injector needs AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  14. Performance Scalability Flexibility Security 3-tier Architecture AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  15. Deployment View AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  16. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  17. Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • FE • FESA support e.g. new std services • Port obsolete GM CO classes • modification of front-end install. • IN • Install. Servers • MWs support • AP • LSA extension • Support of modules • e.g. JAPC mon., OASIS… InCA Project • IS • If renov. with PLC • Install PLC MI Nothing for now • DM • Data model (unique) • API (unique & consistent) • Dedicated expert queries MA Nothing for now • HT - Timing • API (unique & consistent) • Renovation of some parts. AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  18. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  19. Tentative Project Planning (1/2) • Inception: Vision & 1st version Use Case model done. • Elaboration: Validation of the architecture (performance, scalability) with critical Use Cases implemented Critical Use Cases: • Parameter acquisition. • Parameter hierarchy refactoring • ABS (hardware renovation) AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  20. Tentative Project Planning (2/2) • Construction: Implementation of the other Use Cases & Periodic MDs where the system is put in production to validate the developments Machine time needed ! • Transition: InCA in production. Low-priority Use Case development & bug fixes AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  21. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  22. Risks & Solutions • Parameter acquisition scalability • To be tackled in 1st prio (elaboration phase). • Need to work in the FEC part as well (vertical picture) • Changes in the parameter hierarchy model ( & ) • To be tackled in 1st prio (elaboration phase). • GM classes owned by eqp groups • Close contact with CO3. • Component-based • Need work & support from the teams in charge. • Teething problems • Unavoidable! Reduced effect by periodic MDs. AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  23. Overview • Working Group Objectives • Requirements - What Services? • Solution Evaluation – LSA, PS system. • Injector Control Architecture • Component View • 3-tier Architecture • Deployment View • Dependencies with AB/CO sections & projects • Tentative Project Planning • Risks & Solutions • Working Group Conclusions AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  24. Working Group Conclusions • Summary of the PS complex requirements. • Done. Vision & Glossary in finalisation (see EDMS doc no 863516 & 860974) • Evaluation of LSA & PS systems. • Done. See meetings’ minutes & presentations in EDMS. • LSA covers only parts of the requirements. • PSA: Serious limitations of 2-tier but keep GUI part. • InCA proposal • 3-tier system based on AB/CO modules • Keeps WorkingSet/Know view in the CCC PS bay. • New components & modifications of the existing ones needed to fulfil injector needs. AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

  25. Questions ?!? AB/CO Technical Committee PSCCSR Results & proposal

More Related