-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 340
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
override.battery.packs doesn't work to adjust reported battery voltage #1279
Comments
I am not sure how that value's override would impact voltage. I believe it is for tracking the hardware composition of (larger) UPSes - how many independent batteries it has, if some can be diagnosed and replaced separately: https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/blob/master/docs/nut-names.txt#L450 Beside that, the issue title is misleading: according to the data screenshot in your post, |
Also, just in case: are you able to measure the actual battery voltage with an electric meter? Is the battery as old as the UPS or did you replace it - their lifetime is in a few years' range at best, so a 10 years old battery is probably dead and the voltage reading may be in fact correct ;) |
thx for your reply. The two batteries are new. I replaced the batteries a few weeks ago. The voltage should be 2x12V=24V (nominal voltage). I measured the open circuit voltage at 27,2V. The original software of my UPS shows the right voltage: 27,24V. So the problem is in the nut-software. Here the description of this parameter:
per https://networkupstools.org/docs/man/nutdrv_qx.html So it should work. But it doesn't work :-( I found another thread about this: But I can't find a solution. Any ideas? |
I also have the same issue reported by the user. My NUT is returning Battery.voltage 225.00 and when viewing the UPS panel or measuring through a voltmeter, I get 216 Volts. I performed tests with blazer_ser and nutdrv_qx but got the same results. Has anyone found a solution? NOTE: Nobreate TS Shara TS SYAL 10 KVa connected via serial to USB converter.
|
Facing same problem with Powerman Online 1000 Plus (USB connection): [ 1194.166542] usb 1-8: new low-speed USB device number 3 using xhci_hcd $upsc ups0@localhost |
Tried blazer_usb with with same override.battery.packs value - it shows actual voltage, so maybe bug in nutdrv_qx only. |
Just in case - might also be a bug in 2.7.4 release that was long ago. With 2.8.0 finally published this year, are you in position to check if it (or current git head) fares better? |
I think there is a bug in |
FWIW, I can confirm with latest git head the bug in nutdrv_qx persists. Tested on ABB Powervalue with usb
|
Just to clarify: 9cb8de681 is not "latest git head" but the April release of NUT v2.8.0. Some bugs were fixed since then, though I don't remember anyone addressing this one. One thing that comes to mind regards the change from libusb-0.1 to 1.0 - might be some issue in that lib or use of it?.. Can you build and test in-place (install not required) current NUT against libusb-0.1.x to rule that out? |
Also by IDs in the last post, I think the subdriver should be |
Found the error, was using old build config rules. After fixing the config, still no dice :-(.
As requested here is an output when compiled with libusb-0.1.
|
Scribbling some notes here, to juggle for "differential diagnostics, people!" :)
Also:
Noting similar code paths that deal with battery packs variables in blazer and nutdrv_qx drivers:
|
….XXX") for troubleshooting [networkupstools#1279]
…attery.voltage.low/high/nom if known always (not just if battery.charge or battery.runtime are not served) [networkupstools#1279]
Can you try building and running the driver from https://github.com/jimklimov/nut/tree/issue-1279 (source of PR #1652) to check if it behaves better? So far just making educated guesses... |
I get compile time errors when I try to build issue-1279. This does not happen with the master-branch Build system is RPI3 running ArchLinux.
|
That's odd... errors per se seem familiar from recent discussion on more building stacks for Windows. This file is a fallback for platforms that lack The primary problem here is that it got built at all. The function should just be in standard Linux/glibc. And it should be similar in current If you have that workspace still around, can you check in So is it something random, due to build machine constraints, or something NUT recipes and other code can address? Do the two codebases you tried differ in |
Also wondering if something important for the test happens reproducibly e.g. due to 32-bit ARM (right?) |
It is a 64 bit system output snippet from config.log
To the untrained eye only thing that stands out is when configure exits.
|
The |
Not quite, a solution was experimented with PR #1652 but stalled a bit on... something (gotta revise and remember why). Beside the PR source branch availability, it was not merged back to master. Not sure what "2.8.0-5" package contains (or in which OS taxonomy it is), but generally package revisions are unlikely to include code from master branch of an upstream project (more so code not even merged there yet), and are usually revisions of the packaging recipe or some patches hand-picked by distro maintainers. |
Seasons Greetings, @jimklimov Thanks , Just in time for Christmas :-). It seems the latest code does fix all the issues.
|
Thanks for the confirmation @y0g33 ! I tried to retrace the notes here and in the PR, but not sure what changed for the issue between your last test (before Hacktoberfest) and now - possibly something tangentially related in merge from master branch done later?.. If possible, please give this build some more attention (e.g. how well it reports the charge and voltage after some driver uptime), can the fix be considered completed or needs some more tweaks? I would then hope to re-merge from master (currently has a merge-conflict) after some other PRs which are currently on CI testing do land, and merge this fix back to master after it passes for everyone to benefit. |
….XXX") for troubleshooting [networkupstools#1279]
….XXX") for troubleshooting [networkupstools#1279] Signed-off-by: Jim Klimov <jimklimov+nut@gmail.com>
Got back to this subject, again... The last two reports did substantially differ in The earlier reports (with 69%) were at least explainable by
but the |
Hello, @y0g33 @baerenwaldfreund @y0g33 @EmersonHeiderich @anphsw @mateuszdrab - long time no see :) I've had a dive back into this code and updated the pull request hoping to fix it. Would any of you have a chance to try custom-building from that PR's source branch https://github.com/jimklimov/nut/tree/issue-1279 to see if these issues are finally fixed? https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/wiki/Building-NUT-for-in%E2%80%90place-upgrades-or-non%E2%80%90disruptive-tests summarizes how to do so, without necessarily impacting your installed NUT. Roughly like:
If this time around is the charm, and new code works better(*) and not worse(**) than the current master, this can finally get merged to benefit everyone (and unblock cutting a 2.8.1 release in my eyes).
|
nutdrv_qx: init battery info always if it is known [issue #1279]
The PR was merged, hopefully all the issues were weeded out and this area of NUT would behave no worse than it did without the feature. |
….XXX") for troubleshooting [networkupstools#1279] Signed-off-by: Jim Klimov <jimklimov+nut@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alex W Baulé <alexwbaule@gmail.com>
…attery.voltage.low/high/nom if known always (not just if battery.charge or battery.runtime are not served) [networkupstools#1279] Signed-off-by: Alex W Baulé <alexwbaule@gmail.com>
…range [networkupstools#1279] Signed-off-by: Alex W Baulé <alexwbaule@gmail.com>
…er of battery packs [networkupstools#1279] Signed-off-by: Alex W Baulé <alexwbaule@gmail.com>
… when guessing battery.packs count [networkupstools#1279] Signed-off-by: Alex W Baulé <alexwbaule@gmail.com>
…range when guessing battery.packs count [networkupstools#1279] Signed-off-by: Alex W Baulé <alexwbaule@gmail.com>
…essing [networkupstools#1279] Signed-off-by: Alex W Baulé <alexwbaule@gmail.com>
I spent a lot of time reactivating my old UPS: Online Xanto S700 (build before 2012). But now it almost works. But I still have a small error.
The parameter 'override.battery.packs' doesn't work. Incorrect battery voltage is still reported.
Here the output:
The batterie voltage is 2.27V. So I hoped the parameter 'override.battery.packs=12' will help. But it doesn't work. The reported voltage is still 2.27V.
Here is my
ups.conf
:What can I do to ensure that the correct voltage is displayed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: