[Nut-upsdev] RFC: new variable battery.status

Fri Nov 7 16:47:47 UTC 2014

On 11/3/2014 9:25 PM, thomas schorpp wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> Am 04.11.2014 um 04:12 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
>>
>
>> Note that since the UPS relies on the voltage from the battery pack to
>> determine state of charge, it is quite useful to add in the battery pack
>> voltage to the logs as such:
>>
>> --- upslog.c.orig 2012-07-31 10:38:58.000000000 -0700
>> +++ upslog.c 2014-02-20 09:23:14.000000000 -0800
>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
>> static flist_t *fhead = NULL;
>>
>> #define DEFAULT_LOGFORMAT "%TIME @Y at m@d @H at M@S% %VAR battery.charge% " \
>> + "%VAR battery.voltage% %VAR output.current% " \
>> "%VAR input.voltage% %VAR ups.load% [%VAR ups.status%] " \
>> "%VAR ups.temperature% %VAR input.frequency%"
>>
>
> 1. I see no need to patch a program for any parameter (-extension)
> already handled:
>
> $ upslog -f "%VAR battery.voltage%" -s ups at fritz.box -l -
> Network UPS Tools upslog 2.6.4
> logging status of ups at fritz.box to - (30s intervals)
> writepid: fopen /var/run/nut/upslog.pid: Permission denied
> 25.90
> 25.90
> ^C25.90
> Signal 2: exiting
> $
>
> $ upslog -f "%VAR battery.status.abm%" -s ups at fritz.box -l -
> Network UPS Tools upslog 2.6.4
> logging status of ups at fritz.box to - (30s intervals)
> writepid: fopen /var/run/nut/upslog.pid: Permission denied
> RS
> RS
> ^CRS
> Signal 2: exiting
> $
>

Actually, it wasn't my intent that patch would go into the distribution, 
it was my intent to help others who have these UPSes
still in service to get a better handle on their pecularities.  But, you 
actually bring up a great point.  Why have ANY variables at all in upslog?

We should just have the output of upslog an empty log.  And tell
users to specify ALL the parameters they want that are important to
them on the command line to upslog.

After all, selecting ANY parameters for default inclusion in upslog
must make us look like total know-it-all assholes, right?

I think that's what the logic your using is saying.

> And new defaults need PL and broader community consencus, I assume?
>

Yes.  All users of upscode2 let's hear what they have to say.

You must have many upscode2 UPSes in service, Thomas.  I congratulate 
you as keeping these old units in service actually requires a lot of
knowledge of UPSes.

I should know as I have one in service  :-|  But since you have so many
more upscode2 UPSes in service you must have a much better knowledge of
whether the patch is a good one than I do.

> Suggest You better patch the manpage first encouraging users reading
> manpages ;-)
>

You seem very threatened by the suggestion to give users of the software
more information in the log that they can use.

> 2. man upslog:
>
> -i interval
> Wait this many seconds between polls. This defaults to 30 seconds.
> If you require tighter timing, you should write your own logger using
> the upsclient(3) library.
>
>
> 30s are far to long to catch short but maybe damaging line power
> incidents, so I would second that.
>
> 3. Maybe You shouldn't top post nor (re)word wrap mails to devlists,
> thank You.
>

Ah.  Thank you for posting what is REALLY bothering you.  After all, no 
need to actually make some reasonable explanations of your positions 
when it's easier to criticize for some imagined slight given by putting
photons in a slightly different place on the screen.  Much better
to reply with cryptically short responses that violate grammar rules and
require multiple rereads to even get a sense of what you might possibly
be talking about.  After all those fuzzball routers just barely have 
enough CPU available to pass the short emails.

Now I suppose your going to respond with that immature drivel that's 
been floating around, lets see if I remember it:

> Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>     > Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>     >> Top-posting.
>     >>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

We all must make sure our postings are formatted so your circa 1982 
/bin/mail command can still read it <eyeroll>

Ted

> PL ?
>
>>
>> Ted
>
> y
> tom
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2014 3:25 PM, thomas schorpp wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am 13.02.2012 um 18:58 schrieb Arnaud Quette:
>>>> 2012/2/6 thomas schorpp <thomas.schorpp at googlemail.com>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>
>>>>> I want the driver report the battery status from ABM charging
>>>>> controllers
>>>>> -patch attached- :
>>>>
>>>
>>>> For now, I've tracked your patch here:
>>>> https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=313541&group_id=30602&atid=411544
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, but no anonymous read access, so not very useful linking on
>>> public lists:
>>>
>>> "You've been redirected to this login page because you have tried
>>> accessing a page that was not available to you as an anonymous user."
>>>
>>>>> *or the charge estimation calculator of the driver is broken:
>>>>>
>>>>> battery.capacity.nominal: 17.00
>>>>> battery.charge: 93.9
>>>>> battery.runtime: 1620
>>>>> battery.status.abm: FT
>>>>> battery.voltage: 27.70
>>>>> battery.voltage.maximum: 28.20
>>>>> battery.voltage.minimum: 20.00
>>>>> battery.voltage.nominal: 24.00
>>>>> device.mfr: Compaq
>>>>> device.model: UPS 1000 VA FW -0026
>>>>> device.serial: E00230050
>>>
>>>>
>>>> as mentioned in the manpage and source code, no battery.charge data is
>>>> returned from the device.
>>>> "the driver will guestimate a value based on the nominal battery
>>>> min/max and the current battery voltage."
>>>
>>> Maybe I've found a better "guesstimation", -PATCH found cleaning up old
>>> stuff attached-
>>>
>>>>
>>>> so it may be due to both.
>>>> It may also be a percentage of the nominal level, which may be not
>>>> reachable after some time.
>>>
>>> We're talking about lead/acid batteries here? A lead battery not
>>> reaching its rated nominal after charge is usually considered to be
>>> broken,
>>> ask Your car garage mechanic ;-)
>>>
>>> And now it's after "some (EU warranty) time" for my batteries:
>>>
>>> battery.capacity.nominal: 17.00
>>> battery.charge: 98.3
>>> battery.runtime: 2280
>>> battery.status.abm: RS
>>> battery.voltage: 25.90
>>> battery.voltage.maximum: 28.20
>>> battery.voltage.minimum: 20.00
>>> battery.voltage.nominal: 24.00
>>> ups.mfr: Compaq
>>> ups.model: UPS 1000 VA FW -0026
>>> ups.serial: E00230050
>>>
>>> Voltage still above "nominal" in ABM resting state.
>>>
>>> And one more, the "panel test" isn't a "panel test", it's a complete
>>> selftest including the controller, inverter and fan under load here.
>>>
>>> Here's the last patch for people using NUT and still have got an
>>> upscode2 talking UPS, who may find it useful, pls report breakage.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Arnaud
>>>>
>>>
>>> y
>>> tom
>>>
>>> --- drivers/upscode2.c 2012-05-15 13:22:07.000000000 +0200
>>> +++ drivers/upscode2.c 2012-07-18 15:39:15.000000000 +0200
>
> -Removed because re-wordwrapped broken- See "RFC: new variable
> battery.status (was: [PATCH] upscode2: Report ABM Status)" topic.
>
>