8 Replies Latest reply on Aug 14, 2015 2:33 PM by Ed Blair

    "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0

    Ed Blair

      Hello -

       

      Am considering implementing Feeder Manager 2.0 across multiple named levels -- what was referred to as "Extended Feeder Manager" for FM 1.0.  The lowest level source would be the station circuit breaker, the next highest source would be a circuit switcher above the station power transformer.  There might be another, higher level at an arbitrary origin representing a transmission source.

       

      Anyway, before digging in to this too far I'm wondering if anyone has done this yet, and if so if there any tips, tricks or gotcha's to look out for.  I'm aware that the FeederID field will be populated from the name of the highest level source and sub-source identifiers will be in other fields.

       

      Thanks,

      Ed

        • Re: "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0
          Ravishankar Jayaraman

          Ed,

           

          This was implemented at a client and the experience so far is not so happy. I wouldn;t blame FM2.0 completely for that but it does play a role which we are trying to nail down.

          Few Gotchas for FM2.0 in general if ArcMap crosses 2GB (4GB extended) of Virtual Memory utilization we are seeing some odd behavior in FM2.0 because of Ascent database. It is adviced to turn this off, if required after carefully studying Memory footprint.

          Hope this helps.

           

          Thanks,

          Ravi

            • Re: "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0
              Ed Blair

              Ravi -

               

              Thanks much for the feedback.    To the degree than FM 2.0 is contributing to some unhappiness,  do you have a sense of whether this is just FM 2.0 -- or FM 2.0 as configured to operate at multiple voltage levels (as would have been the case with "Extended Feeder Manager")?

               

              Or is it the case that the current unhappiness lies in the combination of FM 2.0 and Ascent?

               

              Thanks again,

              Ed

                • Re: "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0
                  Ravishankar Jayaraman

                  Ed,

                  This is FM 2.0 configured with multiple voltage levels (although at this client site it is for same voltage level but with subsources used for a different use).

                  FM2.0 definitely has some memory leaks and we see that pronounced at this site and this may be due to the fact that EFM is configured which are promptly being fixed by the development now.

                   

                  Thanks,

                  Ravi

                  • Re: "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0
                    Matthew Crooks

                    Hi Ravi and Ed -

                     

                    I wanted to chime in here and mention that it was a unique data configuration where each individual distribution transformer has been identified as a subsource with Feeder Manager. This is not a 'normal' configuration and resulted in an abnormally large collection of subsources.

                     

                    We've been working very closely with the client to address this and recently released a patch that improves the memory footprint and also optimizes the FM2.0 cache in several other places as a result of the configuration. Visit GIS Downloads and filter on ArcFM Desktop 10.2.1a to get the latest patch.

                     

                    The Esent database with FM2.0 is configurable and like Ravi said, depending on your environment and memory requirements you may want to modify the configuration. Visit Insider's Guide to Feeder Manager 2.0 and Best Practices for Optimal Performance in ArcFM - Feeder Manager 2.0 for more information.

                     

                    Let me know if there are further questions.

                      • Re: "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0
                        Ed Blair

                        Ahhhh...

                         

                        Matt, thanks for that detail about each individual distribution transformer being configured as a sub-source.  I can see how that would potentially make a big difference in FM 2.0 behavior.   Thanks as well for the other information.

                         

                        Ed

                        • Re: "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0
                          Ed Blair

                          Matt, Ravi -

                           

                          I'm curious about the use case for designating all distribution transformers as sub-sources for FM (either in FM 1 or FM 2 really).  Is this primarily for the purpose of designating secondary "mesh" networks as "feeders"? In which case I guess I would understand the general logic.  Or is there a business-driven use case for designating all secondaries/services downstream of all distribution transformers as separate feeders?

                           

                          Again, really just asking out of curiosity.

                           

                          Ed

                            • Re: "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0
                              Ravishankar Jayaraman

                              Ed,

                              It was rather bad design that FM 2.0 was configured here to achieve something that could have been achieved in different simpler ways. I was told that it was configured to get customer to Transformer Relationship and to avoid writing an AU/batch process that would relate a ServicePoint to the Transformer.

                               

                              Thanks,

                              Ravi

                                • Re: "Extended" Feeder Manager 2.0
                                  Ed Blair

                                  Ravi -

                                   

                                  OK.   So its not really a business requirement that equipment downstream of the distribution transformer be considered part of the same distinct secondary "feeder," but rather this FM 2.0 configuration was applied to achieve the technical requirement of linking a service point to a transformer.   And right, there would be other ways to do this.

                                   

                                  Always interesting.   Thanks again for the info and insights!

                                  Ed