On 06/07/2015 02:25 AM, Alexander Rössler wrote: > I recommend you some literature on this topic. Embedded real-time > systems are not data centers.
Nowhere have I suggested that. Be careful here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_form-factor_pluggable_transceiver with matching interfaces of course can make embedded RT system just a few nS away from the DC! Data centers in large industrial complexes are not far from embedded systems relatively speaking. Nuclear and other power plants I've seen are designed that way, where most if not all "embedded systems" connect to the "data center". All distributed systems eventually need to be managed or monitored from one or more places! So now we are back to Sandybox running LinuxCNC and good idea of possibility to run GUI remotely. > Hermann Kopetz, Real-Time Systems: Design Principles for Distributed > Embedded Applications, Springer, 2011, ISBN: 978-1-4419-8236-0 > > Roman Obermaisser, Event-Triggered and Time-Triggered Control Paradigms, > Springer, 2005, ISBN: 0-387-23043-2 That's all nice but what has that to do with my original post about problems with connecting or stacking (physically incompatible) interfaces on top of low cost SBC? > There is an Raspberri Pi model with PCB edge connector: > https://www.raspberrypi.org/raspberry-pi-compute-module-new-product/ > > But I don't get it. What makes this type of connector better than a pin > header? If one wants to connect sensors to this device it would be > necessary to create a break-out board anyway. > I've seen this months ago. Good start, Compute module, and design but they blew it with the Compute Module IO Board it's only a developer board with larger footprint than a backplane could be. It's header connectors are for test purposes or connecting to sections of them but not suitable for adding other boards. I hope not, because I bet 10 donuts that you'll bend some pins first time you try to remove the board. What they should have done is design 2 or 3 interfaces with edge connectors just like the compute board and add a backplane IMO. http://www.element14.com/community/community/raspberry-pi/raspberry-pi-compute-module/blog/2014/06/26/raspberry-pi-compute-module--getting-started "Raspberry Pi has become a firm favorite in the maker community and there are many thousands of projects that use the Pi including many professional products. But the form factor of the Pi, while being ideal for makers and hackers the world over is not so ideal for industrial applications or professional products." So I'm not the only one seeing this problem! Same situation with BBB. CNC goes under industrial products as far as I know so there won't be many CNC machines built with mentioned SBCs in their current form factor. Ideally, edge connector interfaces would have ports in groups depending on functionality or speed. Common functions on interfaces: - storage (RAM, SSD) - DIO board, - A/D - D/A - sound processors - USB, CAN, I2C - Ethernet - wireless - GPS That way new designers would see the potential right away. Now everybody seem to be encouraged to build their own versions of proprietary "carrier boards" which almost never match your needs and it's not what I have in mind. There are others doing similar things, but for an "industrial price". I'm sure they are not "bus" compatible so you can't mix the boards. http://linuxgizmos.com/linux-ready-com-family-adopts-new-freescale-imx6-ultralite/ That's how I see it. I suggest you check out http://elinux.org/Main_Page and tell me how many HW projects are board compatible? Too many bananas: http://wiki.lemaker.org/BananaPro/Pi:Hardware_specification Has anybody seen schematics for mentioned SBC in other form than PDF? -- Rafael ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
