The way forward - DAQmx or DAQmx Base for RHEL 6.x?

[SyamCR]

I have NI hardware working on RHEL 5 with DAQmx 8.0 with an NI-KAL update.

Now, we want to migrate to RHEL 6 for newer projects. I see that DAQmx 8.0.2 with NI-KAL 2.3.1 would support RHEL 6.

But this page: "What Linux Distributions Do National Instruments Drivers and Software Support?" http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/4857A755082E9E228625778900709661

says that DAQmx Base 3.6 is the 'currently supported' driver for RHEL 6.

DAQmx is listed in 'Previous support' section with a note: 'National Instruments recommends using the software listed above. NI does not actively validate previously supported Linux distributions, drivers, or software.'.

So, does this mean that DAQmx is no longer an actively maintained option for Linux (RHEL in particular) and we should all be

adopting DAQmx Base?

I'd really like to stick to something that has a future on RHEL 7 too.

Also, on a related note, is programming with DAQmx Base different from DAQmx?

[JoeFriedchicken]

SyamCR wrote:

Should we all be adopting DAQmx Base?

I think this depends on your particular situation. Let me answer your other question first.

Is programming with DAQmx Base different from DAQmx?

Yes. These are different drivers despite their similar names. While DAQmx Base supports more hardware (some USB devices) and newer distributions that DAQmx, it implements a subset of the DAQmx features. See the readme [1] for details.

Does your application require hardware support or driver features only provided by DAQmx?

• If yes, then you'll need to continue using DAQmx, and you'll have to continue using NI-KAL updates to maintain kernel compatibility [2].
• If no, then you can use DAQmx Base, which maintains parity with the Knowledge Base document you linked.

[1] NI-DAQmx Base 3.6 for Linux Readme

http://ftp.ni.com/support/softlib//multifunction_daq/nidaqmxbase/3.6/Linux/README.txt

[2] Running NI-DAQmx with RedHat Enterprise 6

https://decibel.ni.com/content/message/48265#48265

[SyamCR]

Thanks Joe. But you still didn't answer the key question.

Is DAQmx Base the official prefered driver by NI for the future?

The KB document I linked http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/4857A755082E9E228625778900709661 seems to say so.

My concern is will you guys stop releasing DAQmx/NI-KAL and ask everyone to switch to DAQmx Base.

I understand that if I need features that only DAQmx provides, I have to obviously use that. But the question is which one to use if my hardware

is supported by both?

Or even, should I be selecting hardware that works with DAQmx Base since that is the driver of the future?

[irwan]

I can tell you for sure that NI-KAL will still be around for a longgg time. We still actively maintain it. It's the glue that binds whatever kernel API changes to our kernel binary blob. We're going to still need it going forward.

I can't say the official word regarding DAQmx vs DAQmx base though, I'm not in that group.

[JoeFriedchicken]

SyamCR wrote:

Is DAQmx Base the official prefered driver by NI for the future?

Again, it depends on your situation. I'll answer this by answering your other questions.

But the question is which one to use if my hardware is supported by both?

Unless your validation uncovers a reason to do so otherwise, use DAQmx 8.0.2. This driver implements more hardware features and has been optimized more rigorously.

Or even, should I be selecting hardware that works with DAQmx Base since that is the driver of the future?

The primary reason to select DAQmx Base is USB device support. If you need to migrate to USB devices, then your only option is this driver.

Speaking a bit more generally, both DAQmx and DAQmx Base depend on NI-KAL. If you need DAQmx, then it will be possible to use the driver by continuing to update NI-KAL. If you need DAQmx Base, then it will be possible to use the driver because its installer includes the most recent NI-KAL available. Both are tenable choices, but DAQmx Base has a better installation experience because it is validated against the supported distributions list before release.

I can understand the desire for a simple declaration like "this single choice is the only viable option", but for Linux, answers are never that easy. vi or emacs? 😉