Vera 3 or Vera Lite? Performance wise

Hey …i wanted to know what exactly is the difference between Vera 3 & Vera Lite? In terms of performance.

I am aware of the fact that Vera 3 has better DDR2 Memory, 2USB, 4 WAN, 1LAN, etc…And also the fact it can control upto 200 devices.

My purpose of use will be of Basic Home Lighting Automation using Fibaro Modules controlling through iPhone/Samsung S4 or Handheld remote. The maximum number of devices wont be more than 50.

Does the performance of both the devices really make a difference? Is Vera Lite better option considering the cost factor?

I would have thought that the price differential is really not a consideration in a large system… the modules will cost you a lot more than the Vera.

If you don’t need the WiFi or router capability, then Lite would seem to fit the bill.

I have a medium-sized system (with a fair number of Fibaro modules giving no problems per your other recent post - see below for my configuration.). Most of my Z-Wave devices are on just one of my Vera Lites, and I have a large number of scenes and some fairly large plugins (dataMine, log file, weather, …) and serial control of a Denon receiver. Also bridged this to another of the Veras.

All runs just fine with minimal delay in device operation.

Though you said you already understodd, here is a hardware comparison of the units.

I’ve seen @RichardTSchaefer post this several times

and I’d have to agree with his numbers. So, calculate your needs. [tt](Number of devices + Number of Plugins) X 4MB plus 20% for scenes and logic = Approximate Memory requirement.[/tt]

[quote=“Z-Waver, post:3, topic:175287”]I’ve seen @RichardTSchaefer post this several times

and I’d have to agree with his numbers. So, calculate your needs. [tt](Number of devices + Number of Plugins) X 4MB plus 20% for scenes and logic = Approximate Memory requirement.[/tt][/quote]

Is that official? Based on 64Mb you would have only 13/14 nodes/devices? Where as, if I look at my Veralite, I have way more than that installed and running ? Is he talking about concurrency, I would be surprised if RAM memory was held indefinitely by every device you installed, it would suggest a very inefficient system?

I would not agree to the average app size being 4 mb. Also do not confuse apps and devices… I have just pushed 26 common apps on to a system which relates to 65 devices which took 39 mb. @RTS is providing some conservative figures and if you think you can stay within logic that presents the Vera-lite will work fine for most.

The numbers I had was with memory observations starting with a new system and adding devices. Also from an earlier release … 1.5.408

But the numbers do not grow linearly. My current model has changed … (Since I do not have the source code … I am only guessing …)

A stack for a thread would use up a lot of memory.
Startup runs an init job on all devices … causing a thread to be activated for each … causing the initial memory growth.
Each device can have up to two threads. I believe that they have a thread pool that limits the global number of active threads … causing the memory to be non linear.

Richard, the previous comment switched direction from your reference about apps install to node (or devices) which the correlation is not the same. Agree it is not linear growth for devices.

Note I always excluded Controlled devices … because the memory seems to be associated with the Parent devices. My current model is that the significant amounts of memory are currently used by two things … the LUA context and thread stacks, and the latter is the dominant factor.

However Z-Wave devices do seem to show the memory growth … even though they are controlled by the internal Z-Wave device. But I believe that is because the large number of Jobs (threads) for the initialization of these devices.