Size of INSTEON networks?

[ChrisWalker]

I spent a bit of the day today re-researching INSTEON (due in large part to the very nice feature in the SmartHome catalog I received).

We haven't pulled a few hundred INSTEON devices into the lab yet to see how they do in a large installation, but we did do some initial math. I really like how simple the setup is, but the main problem (aside from the potential to introduce X10 instabilities into the system) is its non-mesh "wireless mesh" networking.

Here's the problem. Traditional "mesh networks" differ from repeater networks in one big way. They only intelilgently repeat commands. This is akin to needing to tell a secret to a friend across the room, and so you whisper it to the person next to you, who whispers it to a person closer to the friend, who whispers it to a person even closer to the friend, etc. until eventually your friend gets your message. This example is in an ideal world, where no changes to the message are introduced.

But insteon, while advertised as a "mesh network" seems to have a time-to-live repeating mechanism instead. In other words, a device sends out a message and says "repeat up to 4 times." Then, _every_ device that hears the message starts talking and ends with "repeat up to 3 times." And then _every_ device that heard the other devices talking repeats the message and ends with "repeat up to 2 times," etc.--until devices hear the message ending with "do not repeat" and the repeating stops.

So, this is effectively like using a brute force method to let your friend across the room know your secret. You can imagine in your mind the cacophony of people repeating the message, getting louder and more confusing each time. And in RF terms, having a half dozen or quite possibly a few dozen devices all try to repeat the same message at the same time is pretty much guaranteed to result in exceeding available RF bandwidth and data loss.

Anyway, back to my original question. I have no doubt that the engineers at SmartHome MFG, in creating INSTEON, saw the problems that would occur in a repeating architecture like this. They may have found a way around them.

So I'm curious--for those of you with INSTEON devices, how many do you have in a single home? How reliable have you found it to be, and how long does it take to turn on a light switch across the home?

I imagine that, if the devices and protocol all play well, INSTEON could work well in homes with just a few devices. But with "millions" of devices supported per network per the advertisements, I'm curious to see how larger networks play out from a reliability standpoint.

Chris

 

[electron]

Hi Chris,

The TTL mechanism seems to be similar to how some internet routing protocols work, so hopefully it will be as efficient. I have some INSTEON hardware, and it is pretty fast, but I don't have a large network yet. Did you see the INSTEON whitepaper SmartHome released several weeks ago? It has all the technical details one could wish for. Several SmartHome employees hang out on the forums here, so hopefully they can tell us more about the largest test network they created, I would be interested in that information as well.

 

[Dean Roddey]

The difference though is that on the internet, the passing along of packets is from one point to the next, who then passes it on and so forth. So, if is limited to 8 jumps, it'll only go through 8 machines on the way to its destination and then final guy will dump it and give up.

What he's talking about, if I didn't misunderstand him, is a broadcast kind of deal. Think what the internet would be like if every packet was just sent out to every computer within 5 miles and they sent it out to every computer within 5 miles and so forth. It would probably come to a screetching halt pretty quickly.

Z-Wave, as I understand it, is more like the internet, where each node knows his neighbors and they know their neighbors, and every node has routing tables to know how they can get to another node by passing a message either directly to it or through a neighbor, and the packet gets passed along a chain towards the node you want to get to.

 

[electron]

you are right, I will have to take a look at the white paper again myself.

 

[electron]

When INSTEON devices repeat messages, multiple devices can end up simulcasting the same message, meaning that they can repeat the same message at the same time. To ensure that simulcasting is synchronous (so that multiple devices do not jam each other), INSTEON devices adhere to specific rules given below (see Timeslot Synchronization).

page 23:

Timeslot Synchronization
There is a specific pattern of transmissions, retransmissions and acknowledgements that occurs when an INSTEON message is sent, as shown in the examples below.
An INSTEON message on the powerline occupies either six or thirteen zero crossing periods, depending on whether the message is Standard or Extended. This message transmission time, six or thirteen powerline half-cycles, is called a timeslot in the following discussion. See Message Timeslots, below, for more details.
During a single timeslot, an INSTEON message can be transmitted, retransmitted, or acknowledged. The entire process of communicating an INSTEON message, which may involve retransmissions and acknowledgements, will occur over integer multiples of timeslots.

I would assume that the Timeslot Synchronization feature is what will avoid the issue Chris mentioned. There is more detailed info about this feature in the white paper.

But I am definitely still interested in finding out how large of a network SmartHome tested.

 

[AccessX10]

I only have 16 INSTEON devices running but response and reliability has been fantastic so far.

A user on the HAL forums said the following:

Insteon rocks, I just replaced all 42 older x-10 wall switches in my house as well as a few lamplinc modules. The reliability of Insteon is incredible

42 SwitchLinc V2’s is the most I’ve heard of installed in an end users home. I believe some of the Smarthome employees are running more.

 

[The Pod]

I currently have 2 LampLincs, 1 SwitchLinc, 2 SignaLincs, 1 ControLinc and the USB PowerLinc. If I run only in INSTEON mode, the lights are super fast to respond, I can move the modules all around and there is no effect in performance. Unlike my Z-wave which I can not move modules around without first removing them from the remote and then readding them at the new location.

Now if you try to use the X-10 compatibility mode and add X-10 addresses to the modules and ControLinc, there is a delay in signal performance. I also see strange results with some of my older SwitchLincs turning on even though they are a different address.

I have 4 more LampLinc's, 4 more SignaLincs, 7 more SwitchLincs and 2 more ControLincs coming in this week. So I will have a little larger setup to compare performance with. I will also be testing the mControl software more now that I'll have several INSTEON devices to play with. Currently the only reason I'm adding X-10 addresses to the modules and ControLinc is so that HS will still be able to see and control them. If I have too many problems due to the X-10 addresses, I may have to put HS on the back burner until they support INSTEON directly.

The Pod

 

[upstatemike]

Now if you try to use the X-10 compatibility mode and add X-10 addresses to the modules and ControLinc, there is a delay in signal performance. I also see strange results with some of my older SwitchLincs turning on even though they are a different address

Looks like this confirms that there are issues when trying to do a gradual migration to Insteon. once you get this next batch of Insteon stuff installed how many of the older Switchlincs will you still have in your installation? It will be interesting to see if things continue to get worse for the remaining legacy devices or if the problems level off.

 

[ChrisWalker]

Unlike my Z-wave which I can not move modules around without first removing them from the remote and then readding them at the new location.

Just FYI, this is a limitation of the Z-Wave controller(s) you're using. The software I use here automatically picks up on that and updates the controllers so that you can move around devices without worries. It'll be available for download in the coming weeks.

Also, it fixes the other existing Z-Wave network issues (such as getting rid of failed devices easily, identifying trouble spots easily, getting rid of slowdowns due to environmental conditions and moved furniture, etc.)

Chris

 

[ChrisWalker]

I would assume that the Timeslot Synchronization feature is what will avoid the issue Chris mentioned. There is more detailed info about this feature in the white paper.

But I am definitely still interested in finding out how large of a network SmartHome tested.

Very, very cool. Thanks! I'll have to chat with the SmartHome MFG people about all this. While Z-Wave is the only standard we've found so far that can work really well in small, large, and super-large situations, I'm intrigued by the possibilities.

This board is a wealth of knowledge.

Chris

 

[The Pod]

Just FYI, this is a limitation of the Z-Wave controller(s) you're using. The software I use here automatically picks up on that and updates the controllers so that you can move around devices without worries. It'll be available for download in the coming weeks.

Also, it fixes the other existing Z-Wave network issues (such as getting rid of failed devices easily, identifying trouble spots easily, getting rid of slowdowns due to environmental conditions and moved furniture, etc.)

Chris

This is very good news. Can't tell you how angry I got when I had a Z-wave module burn out and then the network routing started slowing down, etc. and the only option I had to fix this was to delete everything (factory reset the remote) and re-add all my working modules. This and the fact that moving modules requires removal/re-add to remote became a negative in my book for using Z-wave.

Please let us know when your software is available for download and where it can be found. Also if you have any documentation available for it, please post that link also.

The Pod

 

[deranged]

Just FYI, this is a limitation of the Z-Wave controller(s) you're using. The software I use here automatically picks up on that and updates the controllers so that you can move around devices without worries. It'll be available for download in the coming weeks.

Also, it fixes the other existing Z-Wave network issues (such as getting rid of failed devices easily, identifying trouble spots easily, getting rid of slowdowns due to environmental conditions and moved furniture, etc.)

Chris

Is this just a tease,
I have been trying to track why my z-wave modules have been randomly responding so slow. I am going out of my mind, 98 percent of the time the reaction is instant.

2 percent of the time there is a 20 second delay, it started after we had a severe electrical storm. I even powered the whole d*** house down to make sure all the modules where powered off and back on.

Tools like that would greatly help.

StevenE

 

[markthomas]

Anyway, back to my original question. I have no doubt that the engineers at SmartHome MFG, in creating INSTEON, saw the problems that would occur in a repeating architecture like this. They may have found a way around them.

I believe they did. All their switches and lamp modules don't send or repeat RF. They are powerline-only. Their "dual-band" network is dual band only in the same sense that X-10 is dual band. An RF remote sends a signal, which is converted to powerline and sent to the devices.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about what Insteon currently is. Their sales staff seems to be intentionally misguiding people.

 

[fitzpatri8]

I believe they did. All their switches and lamp modules don't send or repeat RF. They are powerline-only. Their "dual-band" network is dual band only in the same sense that X-10 is dual band. An RF remote sends a signal, which is converted to powerline and sent to the devices.

Individual switches and lamp modules do not transmit RF. But no, it's not just like X10. An Insteon network, created by installing a starter kit, includes a minimum of two SignaLinc RFs, which move signals both ways from PLC to wireless, and wireless to PLC. This accomplishes three things: it couples and repeats signals between the two legs of your powerline, it receives and transmits signals from wireless remotes, and it repeats powerline signals it hears on its own leg.

If you read Smarthome's starter kit web page, you'll see a short blurb:

This starter kit includes two SignaLinc RFs, the most important part of the INSTEON network. Installing two SignaLinc RFs creates your INSTEON network, and adding additional SignaLinc RFs will improve INSTEON signal strength and network coverage throughout your home.

Tom

 

[markthomas]

If you read Smarthome's starter kit web page

I have read all their marketing and white papers. I believe I understand it completely. My point was that they're really playing up the RF stuff, confusing people to the point where they are comparing it with Z-wave and zigbee, when it really has more in common with X-10 and UPB.

But no, it's not just like X10.  An Insteon network, created by installing a starter kit, includes a minimum of two SignaLinc RFs, which move signals both ways from PLC to wireless, and wireless to PLC.

So they have the equivalent of a coupler/repeater and RF transceiver. You need two devices. Guess what? I can do the same thing in an X-10 network with two devices.

Tell me, other than these Signalincs, what Insteon devices receive RF? That would be something to distinguish it from X-10.