Real Time Automation 1-800-249-1612 Contact Real Time Automation Contact Us Real Time Automation Product Support Support    
  Real Time Automation Homepage Real Time Automation Products Technologies We Offer Industrial Library Company Information

What’s missing from Profinet

I spent a couple of days last week at a Profinet seminar in Troy, Michigan last week. Lots and lots to say about it. Probably some folks that won’t like what I have to say.


The first day of the seminar is mostly for end users. It is incredibly well done. Carl Henning is the best in the business that I have seen at running these things. You get really great information. It’s entertaining. The slides are first rate. The technical expert (Hunter Harrington) is wonderful. If only I could be that young, good looking and competent again (again? I’d take once.). All in all a really enjoyable way to spend a day if you like spending 7 or 8 hours with a 100 or so other guys.


There’s only two things wrong with what they do. One, they bash EtherNet/IP quite a bit. Not necessary in my opinion. EtherNet/IP has its place. It’s adequate. It works. In fact, it’s small (RTA’s solution is only 20K), exceptionally easy and cheap to integrate and quick to implement (2 days for our solution). A great developer solution.


Neither Profinet IO or EtherNet/IP are perfect. People use the technologies they have to use because of the architectures they already have or the market their in. Nobody evaluates and picks. Second, Carl and Hunter don’t really talk about the downside of Profinet. And there is a downside to it. And I’ll get to that in a second.


As I understand it, the seminar was done because of some heavy arm twisting by Chrysler. They pushed PTO to schedule it and they told their heavy duty suppliers to be there. Chrysler has made a huge commitment to Profinet. Not sure what groups but lots of different suppliers where there.


The mood was pretty grim if you talked to anyone in depth. Travel budgets have been slashed. Layoffs among everyone. One guy told me how it was going to be touch and go if they survive. Knowing their product pretty intimately I think they are going to go belly up. They have a single product that relies heavily on product development and shipping of lots of devices. Very hard for them to make a go of it if the recession lasts 18 to 24 months.


There were a number of Profinet solutions present at the development seminar the next day. Truthfully, I don’t like any of them, even mine! Here’s the round up if you are in the market to develop a Profinet device.


RTA – Our company. We are a reseller of the Softing Source Code stack (see Softing below) and a provider of a little module that does EtherNet/IP, Modbus TCP and Profinet IO. You add it to your board, talk to it over serial (Modbus RTU) and you’re in business without bothering with any of the details. But it’s a gateway with all the inherent limitations of a gateway; response time, customization, bom cost…etc. It’s not really inexpensive either.


SOFTING – Softing has two solutions. Their source code solution and an Alterra FPGA. The source code solution is difficult to integrate, excessively large and costly. When I tell prospects what the cost is going to be they faint. The hardware solution is OK but again it’s not as customizable as I would like. My guys don’t want hardware.


HILSCHERER – If I was to give out an Engineering excellence award it would go to their NetX solution. What an incredible feat of engineering. There are like 5 processors in there and they can all run different protocols and communicate amongst themselves. Wow! But it’s way over engineered and pricey. My biggest complaint is that I can’t customize it. I’d like to add value by tailoring the application side of Profinet but it’s not possible.


SIEMENS – Even larger code than Softing. Same issues with code size, difficulty of integration and price.


ANYBUS – If you have a small number of units to do this is a perfectly acceptable solution. The user interface is a little odd but it supports lots and lots of different protocols so I’ll cut them some slack there. I wouldn’t call this a good solution if you were going to ship 10,000 valve blocks where footprint, cost and time to market matter.


In fact, there is no good footprint, cost and time to market solution for the 10,000 valve block application. If I was building that device I would want to use a real cheap Ethernet enabled processor like a Freescale Coldfire or some Arm processor.


I certainly like the incredible amount of functionality that Profinet brings to the table but as a developer I run away screaming into the night when faced with the complexity.


If I was to do an app like a valve block I’d want to do it with the Flash and RAM I have on board. I wouldn’t want to add additional components. Those extra parts cost me a lot; bom cost, bigger pcb, more assembly labor. And I certainly wouldn’t want to add megabytes and megabytes of Flash to do a source code solution. That’s the one place where Modbus TCP and EtherNet/IP are heads and shoulders better than Profinet.


You see, there just isn’t a good developer solution for Profinet! Devices with Profinet are complex and incredibly expensive. And that’s what’s missing from the Profinet presentation that Carl and Hunter did last week.


One Response to “What’s missing from Profinet”

  1. Carl Henning Says:

    John, thanks for the kind words; it’s nice to know you think I’m “young, good looking and competent”… or were you talking about Hunter then?

    I don’t really set out to bash any of the other technologies. My sense of humor is a bit strange though and I’ll have to be more careful how I phrase things. (But I do get tired of getting bashed. I will try to avoid “bashing” while correcting the misinformation about PROFINET.)

    The key phrase in your concern about PROFINET’s complexity is “as a developer.” All of the providers of PROFINET development tools (including RTA) do a good job of mitigating the complexity for makers of automation devices. And none of that complexity is visible to a USER of PROFINET. In fact, the software programs for configuring and using PROFINET are among the easiest to use that I’ve seen.

    I have not seen a cost difference in devices with PROFINET compared to other technologies. The network is generally a small part of the cost of a device. Your valve block example may be an exception. I’m going to revisit some of the folks that have done that. At least one of those chose to just write their own stack in order to minimize the footprint. It’s an open standard after all.


Leave a Reply

RTA, Inc. - The Industrial Networking Home for DeviceNet, EtherNet/IP, Ethernet Drive,
Modbus TCP, Modbus RTU, PROFINET CBA, PROFINET IO, BACnet, IEC 61131-3,
IEEE 1588, AS-Interface, PROFIBUS, EtherCAT and other networks.
© 2009 Real Time Automation, Inc.

Real Time Automation, Inc.
150 South Sunny Slope Road. Suite 130
Brookfield, WI 53005
© Real Time Automation, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |

(262) 439-4999 (V)
(262) 439-4989 (F)