Upload
phungminh
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Your systems. Working as one.
Critical Communications Technology for IIoT
Gerardo Pardo-Castellote, Ph.D.
RTI – The Core Nervous System for The Industrial IoT Dec 2014
Industrial IoTmade middleware HOT, … again
MQTT AMQP
ZeroMQICE
RabbitMQ
OPC-UA
CAMEL
WebSphereMQ
TIBCOInformaticaIBM
RedHatPrismTech
WebSocketsThrift
Google PBCoAP
RELOAD
DDSRTPSIoT
Industrial Internet RTIZeroC
Axeda
ThingWorx/PTC
How many LOC to change a light?
© 2014 RTI
• There is huge awareness on the IoT– 40B connected devices
– The fridge talking to the bulb, …
• It is real, it is a big trend, it will change the world around us…
• Light bulbs may soon run Linux, so 100K’s LOC…
But this is not the IndustrialInternet…
© 2014 RTI
Copyright © 2013 Appinions. All rights reserved. The Internet Of Things - An Industry Influence Study | July 2014 Copyright © 2014 Appinions Inc. All rights reserved.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
The 10 Most Influential Internet of Things Companies
Samsung announced the launch of
Samsung Smart Home … Home
automation with a single app.
- Source: Yahoo News 04/02/2014
Apple announced partners for its
HomeKit developer platform: Texas
Instruments, Philips, Haier,
Netatmo, Withings, Honeywell,
Marvell, Osram and Broadcom.
- Source: The Guardian 06/02/2014
[Google] paid $3.2bn for
Nest Labs, maker of "smart
home" appliances.
- Source: Bdlive 04/02/2014
Vodafone announced plans to Cobra
Automotive Technologies [strengthening]
its hand in the M2M and connected cars.
- Source: Mobile Money Live 06/16/2014
RANK NIS
1 757 Apple
2 549 Nest
3 243 Google
4 162 Intel
5 129 Microsoft
6 100 Cisco
7 94 Samsung
8 89 Vodafone
9 50 MediaTek
10 47 SecureRF
Semiconductor manufacturer MediaTek today announced their latest
processor platform [LinkIt] targeted at wearables and Internet of Things.
- Source: Mobile Geeks 06/03/2014
7
© 2014 RTIhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2014/07/08/apple-and-google-dominate-internet-of-things-influence-with-home-automation-efforts/
Industrial IoT vs Human IoT
___________________________________________________________ ___________________
Page 1 10/29/2013 Connecting With the IIoT Copyright © 2013 Moor Insights & Strategy
Connecting with the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT)
The Network is the System This paper continues the Internet of Things (IoT) market segmentation Moor Insights & Strategy started in the previous research note, Behaviorally Segmenting the Internet of Things (IoT). Here we compare the Industrial IoT (IIoT) and the Human IoT (HIoT) at and near their end-points. Our comparison highlights near-term IIoT brownfield opportunities.
Executive Summary The primary difference between IIoT and HIoT over the next few years is that the IIoT will incorporate over a century of existing, brownfield infrastructure (deployed mechanical and digital systems ready to be connected) while HIoT is an emerging set of greenfield services and technologies that must build infrastructure as it grows. Designing for IIoT requires deep understanding of solution spaces and an ability to connect systems manufactured many decades apart. IIoT favors solutions vendors such as DIGI, Echelon, and Freescale, who have solid roots in the industrial control world. HIoT favors fast moving prototyping driven by leaps of faith in user experience (UX) and device design, exemplified by the Maker community in particular. The concept of “
good enough” does not apply in the in dustrial world.
Figure 1: IoT Segments by IIoT and HIoT
ExperiencePsychological Wellbeing
Health and SafetyPhysical Wellbeing
Self-DirectedAutonomous
InteractiveReactive
Moore Insights report 2014
© 2014 RTI
© 2014 RTI
___________________________________________________________ ___________________
Page 2 10/29/2013 Connecting With the IIoT Copyright © 2013 Moor Insights & Strategy
What’s the Difference? As mentioned in our previous IoT paper, IIoT end-points must be more robust than HIoT end-points. Sensors embedded in end-points are not much help if the data they generate can’t be collected and transmitted for analysis.
We call these co llection points “gateways.” Figure 2: Gateway Function in IoT
There are many vectors along which we can measure end-point “robustness.” Table 1 summarizes these vectors: Table 1: Near-term end-point differences between IIoT and HIoT
Attribute Industrial IoT (IIoT) Human IoT (HIoT)
Market Opportunity Brownfield Greenfield
Product Lifecycle Until dead or obsolete Whims of style and/or budget
Solution Integration Heterogeneous APIs Vertically integrated
Security Access Identity & privacy
Human Interaction Autonomous Reactive
Availability 0.9999 to 0.99999 (4–5 ‘9 ’s) 0.99 to 0.999 (2–3 ‘9’s)
Access to Internet Intermittent to independent Persistent to interrupted
Response to Failure Resilient, fail-in-place Retry, replace
Network Topology Federations of peer-to-peer Constellations of peripherals
Physical Connectivity
Legacy & purpose-built Evolving broadband & wireless
Example Gateways Commercial monitoring Echelon SmartServer
Consumer home automation Revolv Hub
Market Opportunity: “Brownfield” is a term borrowed from commercial real estate; it is used to denote a potential site for building development that had been previously developed for industrial or commercial use. IIoT uses brownfield to describe the opportunity to connect more than a century of in-service mechanical and electrical systems to the Internet and therefore to new cloud-based services and analytics back-ends. The equipment doesn’t need to be re purchased, it ju st needs new, connected sensors. HIoT devices come prepackaged with sensors, their sensors are difficult to impossible to replace or upgrade without replacing the whole device, and therefore an entire system represents new market development. Even in the case of wearables, like
Cloud
GatewayHub
Wireless
Collectively referred to as a
Gateway
Sensors
and
Actuators
http://www.moorinsightsstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Connecting-with-the-Industrial-Internet-of-Things-IIoT-by-Moor-Insights-Strategy.pdf
Industrial IoT versus Human IoT
Interaction Style Event Driven, Publish-Subscribe
Request / Response
Moore Insights report 2014
Specific Industry Drivers
Industries are facing disruption:
• Decentralized, dynamic energy generation and control
• Transportation value & function becoming software-driven– Similar in farming
• Complexity explosion in medical devices/sensors
© 2014 RTI
Integration time & cost
High
Low
Small LargeSystem Scale
The Key Challenge: Real-Time Integration
Software cost can increase exponentially with system size
DDS: Standards-based Data-Centric Integration
StreamingData
Sensors Events
Real-TimeApplications
EnterpriseApplications
HMI
11© 2012 RTI • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Service InvocationsRequest Reply & RPC
Standard InfrastructureServices:Persistence, Record, …
Real-Time / IIoT DataBus
Middleware Evolution
Point-to-Point Client/Server Publish/Subscribe
Pub/Sub Messaging
Data-Centric
Publish/Subscribe (DCPS)
Data-Centric
12© 2012 RTI • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
Traditional Approach:Centralized Analytics and Control
• Limits scalability and performance– Capacity of individual links and switch ports
– CPU and resource limits on servers
• Diminished robustness– Tied to server maintenance and failures
– Single point of “vulnerability”
• Lessens capabilities and utility– Single centralized “brain”
– No autonomy. Lack of intelligence at the edge.
• Brittle security. All centered “in a single box”
Centralized ESB or Message Broker
© 2014 RTI
Solution:Distributed Analytics & Control at the Edge
• Analyze orders of magnitude more data
• Lower latency control for faster response
• Highly resilient, no single point of failure
• Fine-grained access control and security
• Vastly more capable: Intelligence at the edge
IT OT is Decentralized,Fully Distributed
© 2014 RTI
Same internet, but new WEB
Technology: Platform for Communication Within and Between Machines
OMG DDS
SensorData
Actuators
Streaming Analytics &
ControlHMI/UI
IT, Cloud & SoSConnectivity
12/6/2014 © 2014 RTI 15
RPC over DDS
Dec 2014?
DDSSecurity
2014
Core DDS Specifications
DDSImplementation
Network / TCP / UDP / IP
App
DDSImplementation
App
DDSImplementation
DDS Spec
2004
DDS-RTPSInteroperablity
Protocol
2006
DDS X-Types
2010
App
Approved
In progress
UML Profilefor DDS
Unified Component Model
2015?
DDS-WEBIDL 3.5 IDL 4.0
2014
Supporting DDS Specifications
DDSImplementation
Network / TCP / UDP / IP
App
DDSImplementation
App
DDSImplementation
DDS-RTPS-TCP
2015?
2015?
DDS forLw CCM
2009 2012
Application Instrument.
App DDS-API-C++DDS-API-JAVA
2012
2013
Data-Centric Qos-Aware Pub-Sub Model
PersistenceService
RecordingService
Virtual, decentralized global data space
CRUD operations
Source(Key)
Speed Power Phase
WPT1 37.4 122.0 -12.20
WPT2 10.7 74.0 -12.23
WPTN 50.2 150.07 -11.98
DDS-RTPSWire Protocol
DataReader“Alarm”
DomainParticipant
DataWriter“Alarm”
DomainParticipant
DDS Specification
• Participants scope the global data space (domain)• Topics define the data-objects (collections of subjects)• DataWriters publish data on Topics• DataReaders subscribe to data on Topics• QoS Policies are used configure the system• Listeners are used to notify the application of events
ListenerOffered
QoS ListenerRequested
QoS
New
subscriber!Got new
Data!
Middeware
DDS API
Application
PORTABILITY
DDS-RTPSWire Protocol
Middeware
DDS-RTPS Wire Protocol
• Peer to peer no brokers or servers• Qos Aware & Reliable best efforts top reliable independent of transport, even over multicast!• Any size data automatic fragmentation & reassembly. Smart (fragment) repairs• Automatic Discovery and Presence plug & play. No need to configure discovery services• Decoupled start applications in any order allow readers without writers and vice-versa• Redundant supports multi path and multiple networks. Automatically discards duplicates• High performance close to native “wire” speeds• Scalable no need to maintain N^2 network connections
DDS API
Application
RTPS
INTEROPERABILITY
© 2014 Real-Time Innovations, Inc.
DDS interoperability (DDS-RTPS) also widely supported
OCI ETRI PrismTech IBM RTI TwinOaks
Kongsberg/Gallium alsoDemonstrated Interoperability at a different event
A total of 9 different companies claim compliant implementations of DDS-RTPS
Interoperability Meetups
• DDS Interoperability Works– We will continue working on additional scenarios– Vendors are committed to interoperability– The DDS Standard and DDS-RTPS Interoperability standards are
complete and usable• To-date 9 Vendors have demonstrated interoperability:
DDS is the only standard portable and interoperable publish-subscribe infrastructure
Levels of Interoperability• Level 0: Stand-alone systems. No Interoperability.
• Level 1: Technical Interoperability. A communication protocol exists for exchanging data between participating systems. On this level, a communication infrastructure is established allowing systems to exchange bits and bytes, and the underlying networks and protocols are unambiguously defined.
• Level 2: Syntactic Interoperability. A common structure to exchange information; i.e., a common data format is used. On this level, a common protocol to structure the data is used; the format of the information exchange is unambiguously defined. This layer defines structure.
• Level 3: Semantic Interoperability. The meaning of the data is shared; the content of the information exchange requests are unambiguously defined. This layer defines (word) meaning. There is a related but slightly different interpretation of the phrase semantic interoperability, which is closer to what is here termed Conceptual Interoperability, i.e. information in a form whose meaning is independent of the application generating or using it.
• Level 4: Pragmatic Interoperability is reached when the interoperating systems are aware of the methods and procedures that each system is employing. In other words, the use of the data – or the context of its application – is understood by the participating systems; the context in which the information is exchanged is unambiguously defined. This layer puts the (word) meaning into context.
• Level 5: Dynamic Interoperability: As a system operates on data over time, the state of that system will change, and this includes the assumptions and constraints that affect its data interchange....
• Level 6: Conceptual Interoperability …
Quality of Service (QoS)
• Aside from the actual data to be delivered, users often need to specify HOW to send it …
… reliably, guaranteed, (or “send and forget”)
… how much data (all data , last 5 samples, every 2 secs)
… how long before data is regarded as ‘stale’ and is discarded
… how many publishers of the same data is allowed
… how to ‘failover’ if an existing publisher stops sending data
… how to detect “dead” applications
… …
• These options are controlled by formally-defined Quality of Service (QoS)
Real-Time Quality of Service (QoS)
QoS Policy
DURABILITY
HISTORY
LIFESPAN
WRITER DATA LIFECYCLE
READER DATA LIFECYCLE
ENTITY FACTORY
RESOURCE LIMITS
RELIABILITY
TIME BASED FILTER
DEADLINE
CONTENT FILTERS
Cac
he
Use
r Qo
S
De
live
ry
Pre
sen
tation
Availab
ility
Re
sou
rce
s
Transp
ort
QoS Policy
USER DATA
TOPIC DATA
GROUP DATA
PARTITION
PRESENTATION
DESTINATION ORDER
OWNERSHIP
OWNERSHIP STRENGTH
LIVELINESS
LATENCY BUDGET
TRANSPORT PRIORITY
Common Use Cases supported• Isolating subsystems• Detecting presence of applications• Discovering publishers and subscribers• Discovering services and clients• Keeping a “last-value” cache• Monitoring the health of applications• Monitoring the health of data• Reliable data delivery• Sending a command to multiple devices/systems• Getting progress updates on a long-term request• Building a highly-available systems• Managing network load• Managing system resources
12/6/2014 © 2012 RTI • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 27
Find out more…
www.rti.com
community.rti.com
demo.rti.com
www.youtube.com/realtimeinnovations
blogs.rti.com
www.twitter.com/RealTimeInnov
www.facebook.com/RTIsoftware
dds.omg.org
www.omg.org
© 2014 RTI
www.slideshare.net/GerardoPardowww.slideshare.net/RealTimeInnovations