On Dec 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Phil Stracchino <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, looking at my own monitoring graphs of what happened around the > outage, it looks as though runtime on my UPS is strangely non-linear > with respect to load — i.e, dropping to my critical-systems-only load > which is about 40% of my normal total load (which is to say, slightly > less than 20% of UPS capacity vs. about 45%) does not appear to have > extended runtime nearly as much as expected. It more than doubled the > UPS's PROJECTED runtime according to the UPS, but not the *actual* > runtime. Also, it looks from my graphs as though the UPS was claiming > 10% capacity when it shut off, but 80% when the power came back on. > Slightly tangential to your original issue, but do the values like load (as reported by NUT) generally track the front panel display? We have a number of CyberPower issues whose root cause is a disagreement as to how the HID descriptor (and therefore, the HID reports) should be parsed and interpreted. Link to the whole mess (which includes some other non-HID CPS issues):
https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22CyberPower+%28CPS%29%22 That said, I don't think that differing load when on/off AC is going to fall into the HID category, but there are certainly a lot of open questions surrounding some of the reported values. As Roger suggested, doing a manual self-test on the batteries may be useful. (I don't know if we should see it or not for this model, but I don't see a variable with self-test results in the upsc output.) _______________________________________________ Nut-upsuser mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
