Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:09:59 +0100, T i m wrote:

On 27 Aug 2019 08:54:14 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:59:30 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

On Monday, 26 August 2019 13:25:36 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:

I think anything that can run apcupsd can be networked easily to the
box controlling the UPS. Remakably painless. It's only worth using
NUT (which can allegedly follow an apcupsd server) if there's
something like a NAS you can't install apcupsd on. NUT is less
painless.

sounds like a pain in the ....

I'm controlling three UPS units here with nut. I have done for years. It
just works.

Setting it up is a bit involved but not hard. There's a good README. And
once done, it's done.

Assuming you have used APCUPSD Bob, how does NUT compare? Does it just
work similarly or does it come at the problem from a different
direction?

I never used apcupsd, since this is all BSD based.

Pretty well the same. A 'master' copy of nut (there are two or three
separate parts) monitors the UPS. It has slave copies on the other
machines on the same UPS. When the battery level reaches a specified
threshold, it tells the slaves and they run a script (usually to shut
down). After a short delay, it shuts the server down.

There are three master copies here, one for each machine group and UPS.
One is a 'super master' that knows about the other two. It includes a CGI
script so that a local web server (Apache here) can display the state of
all of the UPS units (in and out voltages, battery remaining) all in a
nice graphical way. It also allows you to look at (and set) the internal
parameters of the UPS.

NUT works with many UPSs other than APC ones. But it is not so
versatile or reliable in setting parameters of some APC UPSs as apcupsd
is.


--

Roger Hayter