[Nut-upsdev] MGE NMC and NutShutdownModule (and other stuff)

[Arjen de Korte]

Citeren Marco Chiappero <marco op absence.it>:

>> In that case, you would indeed be able to run multiple NSM enabled  
>> drivers in parallel. The only objection that remains then is that  
>> putting this in the netxml-ups driver is probably not a good idea.  
>> It would be quite a burden on the little micro controller in the  
>> NMC 66102, since it would also require parsing the full XML data  
>> for each instance.
> Yes, if we do care about detailed info. The summary page can be  
> enough for that, but at this point we should introduce changes in  
> the netxml-driver and a new configuration key (such as "extended =  
> true") which is not good.

The summary page can be also quite large (depending on the model you  
have) so this doesn't really help to reduce the load on the NMC. Since  
the way we get information from the NMC is quite different between the  
polling mode that is used by the netxml-ups driver and the subscribed  
mode for NSM clients, I really don't want to combine these in one  
driver.

> Nonetheless there's no way out if we want many variables, we have to  
> read a "lot" of data from every single UPS involved and stress the  
> NMC, even though UDP can help.

For various reasons, using UDP for collecting data from the UPS is not  
a good idea.

> Maybe we can use the summary page, by default, when the management  
> is enabled, or use different poll intervals for management and data...

Newer versions of the netxml-ups driver already do so by default. Yet,  
this still doesn't fully solve the problem and you really should not  
run more than one netxml-ups driver on any single NMC (regardless of  
which version you have).

> If I'm not wrong the Eaton software polls the summary page every 60 seconds
> and looks for new alarms every 10 seconds.

This might be an option, but for logging purposes a full poll every 60  
seconds is probably not nearly enough.

>> If you'd make this NSM driver a separate one however, I'd be all for it.
> Sorry, I don't understand this last sentence, what you mean?

Please do follow up on the NSM driver, but make this a separate one  
(so don't include it in the netxml-ups driver). This not only reduces  
the load on the NMC, but it will also make the code much cleaner,  
since you don't have to deal with the differences between connected  
and non-connected mode (it would always use connected mode). The  
mapping between variables for values read from the UPS to NUT  
variables would also be reduced significantly and basically you'd only  
have to parse the ones from the ALARM messages.

Best regards, Arjen
-- 
Please keep list traffic on the list