Citeren Marco Chiappero <[email protected]>:
Yes, that's why I was asking about mge-xml subdriver vs. new driver
choice. However my idea was to keep things easy and to basically
create a NSM clone for NUT.
That is where the problem lies. Currently, the upsd server connects to
drivers in a one driver (instance), one UPS mode:
UPS-1 --- driver-A ----+ +---- upsmon client
| |
UPS-2 --- driver-B --- upsd server --- upsmon client
| |
UPS-3 --- driver-C ----+ +---- upsmon client
So each UPS (or outlet, for the clone driver) is exactly one
connection and that's what the socket protocol we use is built on (and
for this reason, we need to use the clone driver if we want to use the
load segment switching).
For an NSM clone, this scheme doesn't work anymore, since one driver
connects to many outlets (or even UPS devices):
UPS-1 ----+ +---- upsmon client
| |
UPS-2 --- NSM driver --- upsd server --- upsmon client
| |
UPS-3 ----+ +---- upsmon client
So this will require 'some' work. And what becomes immediate clear in
the above picture, it probably doesn't make much sense to change the
socket protocol between drivers and server, but instead integrating
the NSM functionality in the server would be much easier.
Then the question remains, why would we want this in the first place?
The NMCs are already servers themselves so adding a upsd server will
only complicate matters. Instead, you could do away with NUT entirely,
by using an appropriate NSM client that directly talks to the NMC and
not have to bother setting NUT up at all. I haven't seen a compelling
argument that adding NUT here is a good idea.
Best regards, Arjen
--
Please keep list traffic on the list
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
