Professional OPC
Development Tools


Online Forums

Technical support is provided through Support Forums below. Anybody can view them; you need to Register/Login to our site (see links in upper right corner) in order to Post questions. You do not have to be a licensed user of our product.

Please read Rules for forum posts before reporting your issue or asking a question. OPC Labs team is actively monitoring the forums, and replies as soon as possible. Various technical information can also be found in our Knowledge Base. For your convenience, we have also assembled a Frequently Asked Questions page.

Do not use the Contact page for technical issues.

DCOM vs. OPC Tunnelling

11 Feb 2011 18:19 #275 by support
Replied by support on topic Re: DCOM vs. OPC Tunnelling
I think that is no reason to use OPC tunnelling, and it is actually better to stay with (remote) DCOM, if:

your system allows you to and you are able to configure DCOM security properly, and
you do not have problem with DCOM traffic versus firewalls.

Best regards,
Zbynek Zahradnik

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

11 Feb 2011 18:15 #274 by support
[split from]
I am glad it works well. I will now split the topic so that the DCOM/tunnelling question can be dealt with separately. Here is a copy of the original request:

"One more question: Do you have any opinion about using Remote DCOM instead of Matrikon Tunneller. So far, we have been using Tunneller, because of reconnect-option. We had to use it anyway, even on local servers, because there was no reconnect in out old OPC-client. With EasyOPC, this has changed, and I have now been testing connection to a remote server simply using DCOM, and it works fine. Communication is even reestablished after server restart. So we consider using this solution for new projects, and save heavy license costs."

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: support
Time to create page: 0.039 seconds