| Thank you. For sure it was my running across an old article that set me on the wrong path. Once I followed the advice from you and others on this awesome list, the integration itself found the nut-servers on my network, and the associated UPS devices themselves. Thank you for helping me learn and doing it in a way that didn’t make me feel like a fool. In short, the add-on was not needed at all. It was the wrong path to start down. ----- The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence. I did a quick experiment.Machine A runs NetBSD 9, ups-nut 2.8.0, and Home Assistant Core2022.8.4. It has a ups foo. Note there is no "nut addon" involved, orany "addon" at all. ("addon" is a Home Assistant concept for the HomeAssistant OS or Supervisor running progams not from Home Assistant.)Machine A runs NetBSD 9, ups-nut 2.8.0. It has a ups bar.Since a long time, a year or two, the nut integration has beenconfigured on A to talk to foo, over the usual 127.0.0.1:3493.I just set up an ssh tunnel to forward 3494 on A to 127.0.0.1:3493 on B.I then added 127.0.0.1:3494 using the UI, and it appeared. The entitiesare better named, "Foo Voltage", so it appears a bunch of rough edgesare gone (which is typical in HA; just wait 6 months and things aresmoother). I should delete and re-add my first UPS to get better names.I then graphed some of the things together and it all seems fine.So that's proof the integration can support two upsd servers, but youhave to be able to contact them, and there is the convention that theylisten on localhost only unless you change that._______________________________________________Nut-upsuser mailing list[email protected]https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
|
signature.asc
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsuser mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
