Large Tank Aquarium Controller Reliance

[aggieoil11]

I'm in the planning stages of putting together a 400 gallon tank with dedicated remote fish room in our new home. One philosophical question I've come across is to what degree of reliance to place on an aquarium controller (Apex, Profilux, etc)? In the past, I've used an Apex to fully control everything, but these have been much smaller tanks with much smaller stakes, so to speak. How do folks with very large tanks think about using aquarium controllers? Do you guys use the controllers to control everything, with multiple layers of redundancy (advanced programming, multiple circuits or power bars, redundant controller equipment) to assist - or more as monitors, with multiple separate systems such that if the controller bricks, not all is offline?

My system will have a whole house generator to get me through any power outages, although it will still have to navigate the 10 - 15 seconds of downtime until the generator is up and the controller will have to power up seamlessly to restore functionality. In the past, my Apex has not been incredibly resilient to power losses, and my fear is that even with the generator the simple act of losing power and then having it restored 15 seconds later still carries significant risk to the ecosystem.

How do you guys handle this question?

 

[Brew12]

I'm in the planning stages of putting together a 400 gallon tank with dedicated remote fish room in our new home. One philosophical question I've come across is to what degree of reliance to place on an aquarium controller (Apex, Profilux, etc)? In the past, I've used an Apex to fully control everything, but these have been much smaller tanks with much smaller stakes, so to speak. How do folks with very large tanks think about using aquarium controllers? Do you guys use the controllers to control everything, with multiple layers of redundancy (advanced programming, multiple circuits or power bars, redundant controller equipment) to assist - or more as monitors, with multiple separate systems such that if the controller bricks, not all is offline?

My system will have a whole house generator to get me through any power outages, although it will still have to navigate the 10 - 15 seconds of downtime until the generator is up and the controller will have to power up seamlessly to restore functionality. In the past, my Apex has not been incredibly resilient to power losses, and my fear is that even with the generator the simple act of losing power and then having it restored 15 seconds later still carries significant risk to the ecosystem.

How do you guys handle this question?

You can never prevent all equipment failures. The best you can hope to do is to create enough redundancy to ride through the inevitable time that you experience a failure.

If you are comfortable with an Apex, stick with the Apex. If anything, add a second Apex and put a return pump, heaters, and some power head controls on it. As for getting the Apex to ride through a power outage better, a small UPS for the Apex brains and your home router should fix most of those issues. A very small one will work since it only needs to work long enough to cover the short time from power off to generator on.

 

[TheHarold]

I comfortably use apex, but am smart with it. Of course I have a powerhead on a separate circuit that will maintain adequate flow even if there is a total failure on the apex system.

Alternatively, you could have the return pump on a separate system-- or. plumb with 2 return pumps, and have the other one redundant.

 

[don_chuwish]

I can't speak to the large aquarium aspect, but when configured correctly for power failure detection, and using a UPS, everything should be fine through a power outage. Overall I don't think I'd skimp on the automation for such a large project. Just document it all very well and have contingency plans for failure scenarios.

 

[aggieoil11]

Thanks for the response. I agree completely that you cannot prevent equipment failures - the best philosophy is to plan for them with redundancy.

I have been an Apex user for a number of years, but with this new tank, I'm contemplating moving to the Profilux from a reliability standpoint. But I'm also trying to work through the potential of adding some more redundancy (complexity) to "smartly" use the Apex.

I hadn't considered the possibility of two Apex units to add resiliency - I like that.

 

[Brew12]

Thanks for the response. I agree completely that you cannot prevent equipment failures - the best philosophy is to plan for them with redundancy.

I have been an Apex user for a number of years, but with this new tank, I'm contemplating moving to the Profilux from a reliability standpoint. But I'm also trying to work through the potential of adding some more redundancy (complexity) to "smartly" use the Apex.

I hadn't considered the possibility of two Apex units to add resiliency - I like that.

I switched from an Apex to a Profilux and I love the GHL system. However, there is a big learning curve going from Apex to GHL. And Apex does have some advantages over the GHL line. I feel they are both excellent products for what they are.

Personally, I feel my Profilux has been more reliable than my Apex was, but I wouldn't call it a fair comparison. My first controller was a used Apex before I purchased a new Profilux. And I know that R2R has a lot more posts about problems with Apex but keep in mind that Apex has a much larger install base with R2R members. Even if they had the exact same failure rates you could expect to see many more complaints about the Apex.

I'm biased toward the Profilux and I'm not saying you shouldn't go that route. If you do, I wouldn't go that route strictly for reliability. I don't think anyone has enough data to know which is truly the more reliable system. Look at the features you want and what is important to you. Better to have a controller that works for you when it works then have regrets. For example, the Apex has a much nicer web interface. If you think you want multiple dosing heads, the Profilux may come out ahead. I currently have 5 heads used for dosing and may add 4 more in the near future. I can do that with 3 GHL Dosers (with one of the 3 also doing my alk monitoring) but it would take 5 DOS units to do the same. And the GHL dosers have a much smaller footprint. If you run a calcium reactor, this would be much less important.

I'd also recommend thinking about redundancy in terms of simplicity, not complexity. The more you add, the more important it is to keep it simple imo. Complexity itself can be a failure mode.