High Performance Hyper – Historian G64-304 ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA Dave Oravetz, US Habib Rehman, Australia Carl Harper, UK Andre Scherpenzeel, UK
Dec 31, 2015
High Performance Hyper – Historian
G64-304
ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA
Dave Oravetz, USHabib Rehman, Australia
Carl Harper, UKAndre Scherpenzeel, UK
ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA, April, 2008
2
Background
To provide not just a ‘data logger’, but a ‘data historian’Compete with the specialist products
ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA, April, 2008
3
Design Goals for User Benefits
High Performance Large tag quantities at high rates
Small ‘data value’ footprint Efficient long duration storage
64 bit & .net Technology Extendable platform allowing for future
growth
ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA, April, 2008
4
Design Goals for User Benefits
Easier data access/interaction OPC UA for ICONICS products API for custom applications SQL interface
Integrate into database systems Query from any OLE-DB client
ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA, April, 2008
5
Competitive Products
ICONICS - Hyper HistorianCompetition
GE – Proficy Rockwell – Factory Talk OSI – Echo Data Historian AspenTech – Info Plus Wonderware – Historian 9 Simatic – IT Historian
ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA, April, 2008
6
SCADA Competitors
Hyper Historian Provides Equal or better throughput performance Equal or better maximum tag counts Extensive client connectivity features
OPC UA, OPC HDA, OLE-DB, Excel, SQL Server, native API, ICONICS Native
Extensive use of recent technologies Vista 64/2008 Server 64/.net
ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA, April, 2008
7
Data Historian Competitors
Hyper Historian Provides Extensive client connectivity features
OPC UA, OPC HDA, OLE-DB, Excel, SQL Server, native API, ICONICS Native
Extensive use of recent technologies Vista 64/2008 Server 64/.net
ICONICS 2008 Worldwide Customer Summit – Boston, MA, April, 2008
8
Comparison Diagram
Comparison Diagram