AVEVA™ PI System™ Feedback Portal

Welcome to our new feedback site!


We created this site to hear your enhancement ideas, suggestions and feedback about AVEVA products and services. All of the feedback you share here is monitored and reviewed by the AVEVA product managers.

To start, take a look at the ideas in the list below and VOTE for your favorite ideas submitted by other users. POST your own idea if it hasn’t been suggested yet. Include COMMENTS and share relevant business case details that will help our product team get more information on the suggestion. Please note that your ideas and comments are visible to all other users.


This page is for feedback specifically for AVEVA PI System. For links to our other feedback portals, please see the tab RESOURCES below.

Add a new idea Subscribe
Status No Status
Product PI Interfaces
Categories Batch Interfaces
Created by Guest
Created on Aug 17, 2022

RELATED IDEAS

Batch Framework Interfaces - Officially support fanning tag data to a PI Collective

Unlike other PI interfaces, the Batch Framework Interfaces do not use buffering. If the interface loses connection to the PI Data Archive, the interface continues collecting data and stores it in its local cache. The PI Batch Database is primary-only so it did not make sense to fan data to other PI Collective members. However, this is no longer a consideration if Event Frames are being written. There should be an officially tested and supported way to fan tag data to a PI Collective.
  • Attach files
  • Alex Santos
    Reply
    |     Apr 17, 2024

    This was implemented on versions 5.1.x of all PI Batch Interfaces. More detais in the article How to buffer data from a PI Interface for Batch/MES


  • Marcus Hultgren
    Reply
    |     Apr 21, 2023

    The PI EMDVB getting the buffering capacity would be a huge benefit!

  • Kenneth Reiss
    Reply
    |     Dec 6, 2022

    This was widely talked about by attendees to AVEVA World 2022. I hope we can see some work on this.

  • Nate Anderson
    Reply
    |     Sep 15, 2022

    This is a common request from our customers in chemicals and pharma - adding a second interface to bring in data to the secondary is not at all ideal, and the missing batch tag data on the secondary greatly diminishes the value of a collective.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Sep 15, 2022

    I have heard a lot of feedback that the power users of our batch data need this to adopt.

  • dbac
    Reply
    |     Sep 15, 2022

    This is very much needed by customers that heavily utilize batch data, but are reluctant to adopt this without official support.

  • Mineeshmon Mathew
    Reply
    |     Sep 2, 2022

    It would be absolutely helpful to implement this. Great idea and full support!

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    Writing tag data to secondary PI server via Batch Interface would be very helpful for us too!
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    We could definitely use this... that way my users won't have to worry about "missing" data when they are looking at the other collective members!!
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    Makes sense - I had a mfg site decline to implement a collective at first because they might be missing batch data if looking at the secondary server in the collective.
  • rgubellini
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    It would be a great improvement for us too.
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    This would be a huge improvement. We are forced to use Tag Templates with our Werum PAS-X Batch Interface since the Business Integrator does not publish data until the event is closed and our records can remain open for 2+ weeks. We plan on publishing the same static attribute data generated to tags but not supporting buffering (essentially not support a collective) is a huge issue at our site.
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    This is a no brainer, definitely should be supported.
  • Kai-Uwe.Tappert
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    Good idea! Please implement this feature.
  • vpolvoreda
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    It would be a great improvement.
  • TanjaHeite
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    Great idea. Please implement this.
  • Rebekah_Wilson
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    I agree that it is necessary to have batch interfaces fan data to a collective. In our use case, we rely on batch data to trigger analytics. Without data going to both collective members, we have no way to ensure our analytics are only connecting to the primary server without subsequently impacting buffering on our analytics outputs. This is really a large oversight with the batch interfaces as OSIsoft continues to grow the analytics capabilities. If batch interfaces do not support buffering, other products need to be able to accommodate this deficiency.
  • Monica Rattaggi GSK
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    It would be really helpful.
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 17, 2022
    Absolutely on board with this functionality.