<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Jan 27, 2019, at 2:36 PM, Phil Stracchino <<a href="mailto:phils@caerllewys.net" class="">phils@caerllewys.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">SO, my full load on my core UPS is two Dell R610s, one Sun X4540, one HP<br class="">DL360p gen8, two six-core Thuban-II workstations plua their monitors,<br class="">and the network stack and KVM.<br class=""><br class="">The APC SU3000RM (3KVA) that blew up last week considered this to be<br class="">just short of 60% load.<br class="">The new Cyberpower PR3000 (also 3KVA), wqhich operates at a 90% power<br class="">factor, considers this same load to be 43% load.<br class=""><br class="">I wasn't expecting that much of a reduction.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>So... 50% load +/- 10% :-)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>(The use of the term "calibration" for an UPS is slightly unfortunate - it's certainly not a traceable metrology-style calibration. I would not be surprised if most of the passives were 5-10% tolerance, and not temperature compensated.)</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I have the snmp-ups driver working with it, have not enabled upsmon yet,<br class="">but upsc seems to get a rather limited set of data from it:<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><div class="">...<br class=""></div></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">In particular, no load, no input or output voltage. (And the runtime<br class="">report is not to be trusted yet until I do a calibration run.)<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I forgot that this landed after 2.7.4: </div><div><br class=""></div><div><a href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/632/commits/3f5e3728a720aba0be76b2fccb603b04962bb904" class="">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/632/commits/3f5e3728a720aba0be76b2fccb603b04962bb904</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>I forget, is your copy of NUT built from an RPM? If so, it shouldn't be too hard to add that patch to get load, charge, input voltage/frequency and output voltage (assuming the RM205 is a superset of the RM202).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You can also use snmpwalk to see what other values might be available. Since there is already a skeleton MIB mapping in NUT, the only two things needed are probably the snmpwalk outputs described at the end of this section: <a href="https://networkupstools.org/docs/developer-guide.chunked/ar01s04.html#snmp-subdrivers" class="">https://networkupstools.org/docs/developer-guide.chunked/ar01s04.html#snmp-subdrivers</a></div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">(Also, I can so far connect only using snmpv1, but I don't know whether<br class="">I should expect to get any additional data from snmpv3 anyway.)<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Again, not my area of expertise, but as far as NUT is concerned, I think the different versions are for authentication methods (SNMPv1 is cleartext).<br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>