New Z-Way Binding

Add-ons Bindings
250

@alberto.vincenzi
@stein_tore_tosse
@Schnicki
@travellingkiwi
@Mihai_Badea

Hey there,

I’m currently working on a solution about the Z-Way binding trouble. During the last days I think I identified the code where it starts to slow down.
I currently have a fixed binding running on my PI and if the system is not slowing down anymore I can release a new binding this weekend.
But I can’t promise anything!
I can give a feedback tomorrow because normally the system starts to slow down after a few hours. Let’s cross fingers that the solution works…

Wire82

2 Likes
251

I spent some time in the substitution of the Z-Way binding.
First I thought, that the MQTT App in Z-Way is unusable, too, but I have to admit, that it now runs like a charm.
Since my OH 2.3 snapshot and Mosquitto run on a NUC and Z-Way runs on a RPi colocated with OH 2.1 stable, after a reboot of the RPi I have to stop and start Z-Way again. After that it’s stable for more than 3 days now. I have “migrated” 7 rollershutters, 6 switches and 9 thermstats.

Althougt it was a lot of work and a trial and error learning curve, I am happy with it now.
It feels like, commands are executed with far less latency.

252

So, the connection between OH 2.1 and OH 2.3 is using MQTT?
Would you care to describe in more detail? A little step-by-step, if it’s possible…
It might be a workaround to our zway problems in 2.2

253

Both instances of OH, one WAFed production instance (2.1 stable) and one experimental (2.3 snapshot) use Z-Way as their Z-Wave Stack. While the production instance is connected over the Z-Way binding 2.1.0, the other instance is connected over MQTT using Mosquitto as the broker and the MQTT App within Z-Way. Both instances talk to the same hardware over different protocols and have their own items. Rules are the same, redundant on both instances. Does that answer your question @Mihai_Badea?

254

Yes, @Schnicki, it’s quite interesting…
Actually, with the MQTT app on z-way-server we could ditch the ZWay binding altogether.
As you said it will be a lot of work, on MQTT app you have to add each device by hand…

255

@Schnicki
@Mihai_Badea
@SM1IRS
@alberto.vincenzi
@stein_tore_tosse
@Heiko_Fanieng

Hi
the binding seems to be working without slowing down. After about 24h testing responsiveness is the same as after starting. :slight_smile:
I also improved latency of the binding and reduced the response time for commands from about 0.5s to about 0.1s at the improved binding.
So please feel free to test the new binding!

(Sorry I found no other way to share this easily… )

So the binding is a quick build and shall help testing the change. So on DEBUG level of the binding you find a " Handeling of command tooks xxx seconds" line to identify how fast the command is handled. So feel free to give feedback about your times. :slight_smile:

Also the system usage of the CPU and RAM does not change over time:

grafik
grafik.jpg1490×751 112 KB

If everything works I will see if I can improve the binding and push everything to OpenHab

Wire82

2 Likes
256

I will try the new binding immediately.

Just for completion, I’ve wrote to Patrick (the original developer of the binding) and he said that he will take a closer look to the problem next week.

You guys are simply great.

257

Okay. Thank you. I will also contact Patrick to share the points I found with him

@pathec - I’m looking forward to get in contact with you to see how we can solve the problem.

258

I’m testing the new binding and in last 24 hours the server load is regular.
The delay is close to zero… I would say that the problem is corrected.

259

Had the same problem, and the new binding seems to work very well. Thank you! :smile:

260

Thank you for the feedback. I also had no issues during the last days. So I will see that I will push the change to OpenHab if I have build a clean version of the binding.

261

Your new binding works great, @Wire82 . Thank you!

262

Hi! Everything looks great here too. Thank you for great jobs with the binding.

image
image.png928×200 46.6 KB

263

Hello Wire82,

since I am affected by the same ZWay problem I would like to try out your improved version with OH 2.2. Is the JAR you provide on Github compatible with OH 2.2. If so, what is the preferred method to install it?

Thanks for checking & fixing this problem.

-Rene

264

@renestraub
Hi Rene,
Yes the binding is compatible with OH 2.2. Just uninstall the ZWay binding via Paper UI and place the .jar file within the Addons folder of your openHAB installation.
After a few seconds openHAB will detect the binding and install it automatically.
Thank you also for testing the binding.
Wire82

265

Running @Wire82 's build for almost a week now… and no problems!
And, indeed, there is a MASSIVE improvement in responsiveness!
Superb work, Johannes! Vielen Dank! :beers:

266

Ok, just installed the 2.3 binding. First impression is very good. Controlled devices react much, much faster than before. CPU load around 20% compared to >100% before. I’ll keep you updated regarding stability and performance.

Great job !
-Rene

267

Now i found the time to set up a test environment with the latest OH-Snapshot and it works very fine :+1:

268

Reinstalled OH 2.2 and the new z-way binding from @wire82 … running very well now
Thanks a lot, great work

269

@Juergen_Pechmann
@Heiko_Fanieng
@renestraub
@Mihai_Badea
@SM1IRS
@m0m
@Casper_Lassenius
@alberto.vincenzi

Thank you very much for testing the binding. After it seems that everything works well I prepared everything for the PR at OpenHab. The version I want to push can be found here:


So fell free to test the, hopefully, final binding. :slight_smile:

Wire82

1 Like