[Nut-upsdev] bestfortress driver establishes/loses/establishes communication and so on...

Arnaud Quette aquette.dev at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 08:36:22 UTC 2012

Hi Stuart,

2012/1/20 Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>:
> Long ago, Nostradamus foresaw that on Jan 19, Arnaud Quette would write:
>>> Perhaps it should leave status unchanged after a single corrupt
>>> record from the UPS instead of reporting a problem.
>> if only the checksum is corrupted from time to time, and not the data,
>> it may be worth to indeed not declare directly staleness.
> We don't know whether the checksum or the data is corrupted.  That is
> the point of a checksum.  However, if the data is unchanged except
> for the checksum, then I think we can safely ignore the checksum.
> But my idea was to just skip up to N corrupt status records (where
> N should likely be 1) without reporting stale.

indeed, I've wrongly expressed myself.

>> I've just committed a patch to trunk (r3400) to get more visibility on
>> the received data, and impact on ignoring checksum.

I'm still interested in seeing the newly added traces in action, and
see the actual behavior.
Could you please run the driver from the trunk, and send back the output?

Linux / Unix Expert R&D - Eaton - http://powerquality.eaton.com
Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - http://www.networkupstools.org/
Debian Developer - http://www.debian.org
Free Software Developer - http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/

More information about the Nut-upsdev mailing list