Nut upsuser - Mar 2006 - PowerWalker UPS - Re-branded Mustek ?

Go for powermust. The mustek driver right now only has a subset of
powermust's functionality.

As for the output of upslog showing an additional "NA" for
powermust... that's a bug... it should be "input.frequency" and
not
"output.frequency". :)


On 3/27/06, devzero@web.de <devzero@web.de> wrote:
> Hello !
>
> first off, thank you all for making this piece of software.
> from what i have seen so far this seems to be a really mature and advanced
tool for all sorts of UPS models !
>
> I`d like to tell that I own a UPS which isn`t listed on the compatibility
list, but seems to be compatible.
>
> It is a PowerWalker - see this at
http://powerwalker.com/de/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=63&Itemid=106
>
> It was damn cheap and I bought it just for testing, if such cheap UPS would
fit to "low end needs".
>
> From what I can tell for now, i`m quite satisfied - I have a little
homeserver running with this for over a year now and it works fine. (From time
to time I do a test and plug the cable and all works continues running).  The
thing that ever annoyed me with this UPS is the big fat java-based control
software. Even the agent running on the server is big fat java-crap.
>
> A year ago I came across this project and didn`t find my model on the list.
> I lost interest because of this but now a year later I thought: "hey,
let`s look again" - but still not being listed.....
>
> On the PowerWalker website, I read that the person behind that company was
related to Mustek before - so I thought, that there is a chance that the
PowerWalker is a rebranded Mustek. I downloaded the source and grepped it for
"mustek" and saw: hey, there is a driver - so I gave it a try and it
really seems that my UPS is a re-branded Mustek.
>
> with the mustek driver - upsc gives:
>
> battery.charge: 97.5
> battery.voltage: 13.6
> driver.name: mustek
> driver.version: 2.0.3
> driver.version.internal: 0.2
> input.frequency: 50.1
> input.voltage: 228.5
> output.voltage: 228.5
> ups.load: 014
> ups.mfr: Mustek
> ups.model: PowerMust
> ups.status: OL
>
> upslog gives:
>
> 20060326 165042 95.0 228.5 013 [OL] NA 50.1
>
> With the powermust driver (tested the next day)  i get:
>
> battery.charge: 100.0
> battery.voltage: 13.7
> battery.voltage.nominal: 12.0
> driver.name: powermust
> driver.version: 2.0.3
> driver.version.internal: 1.1
> input.voltage: 230.7
> input.voltage.fault: 230.7
> input.voltage.maximum: 231.1
> input.voltage.minimum: 230.7
> output.frequency: 50.1
> output.voltage: 230.7
> output.voltage.target.battery: 220.0
> ups.delay.shutdown: 2
> ups.delay.start: 3
> ups.load: 13.0
> ups.mfr: Mustek
> ups.model: PowerMust
> ups.serial: unknown
> ups.status: OL
>
> upslog gives:
> 20060327 194453 100.0 230.7 13.0 [OL] NA NA
>
> I didn`t have time to do in-depth test, but  I think this UPS will probably
work fine with this software.
>
> Does somebody own a PowerWalker and can acknowledge this?
> What additional tests should I do to make sure compatibility is
"sufficient" ?
> For example, i`m unsure what driver should I use - I thought "sure -
take powermust" - but why does upslog show less information than with
mustek driver (it shows two fields "NA") ?
>
> Anyway - i`m happy that I seem to have native linux support for my UPS now.
>
> regards
>
> roland k.
>
> systems engineer
>
> ps:
> Furthermore, there seems some inconsistency between driver.list and
website:
>
> # Network UPS Tools driver.list
> #
> # This file is used to build the compat.html on the web server.  Any line
> # with exactly 4 arguments will be turned into an entry on there.
> # Naturally, it is read by parseconf, so the usual escaping tricks are
> # allowed if you need to insert something unusual.
>
> Is compat.html really built from this file or is this just outdated
information ?
> For example, I don`t find information about the fact, that Mustek UPS is
known to NUT. (BTW: can NUT do autodetection? this should help others who don?t
have such luck or which are not happy to do "experiments")
>
> pps:
> sorry for crossposting - but i thought this was probably of interest for
both users and developers - and since traffic isn`t very high......
> ______________________________________________________________________
> XXL-Speicher, PC-Virenschutz, Spartarife & mehr: Nur im WEB.DE Club!
> Jetzt gratis testen! http://freemail.web.de/home/landingpad/?mc=021130
>
>

--
Carlos Rodrigues

Hello !

first off, thank you all for making this piece of software. 
from what i have seen so far this seems to be a really mature and advanced tool
for all sorts of UPS models !

I`d like to tell that I own a UPS which isn`t listed on the compatibility list,
but seems to be compatible.

It is a PowerWalker - see this at
http://powerwalker.com/de/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=63&Itemid=106

It was damn cheap and I bought it just for testing, if such cheap UPS would fit
to "low end needs".
>From what I can tell for now, i`m quite satisfied - I have a little
homeserver running with this for over a year now and it works fine. (From time
to time I do a test and plug the cable and all works continues running).  The
thing that ever annoyed me with this UPS is the big fat java-based control
software. Even the agent running on the server is big fat java-crap.
A year ago I came across this project and didn`t find my model on the list. 
I lost interest because of this but now a year later I thought: "hey, let`s
look again" - but still not being listed.....

On the PowerWalker website, I read that the person behind that company was
related to Mustek before - so I thought, that there is a chance that the
PowerWalker is a rebranded Mustek. I downloaded the source and grepped it for
"mustek" and saw: hey, there is a driver - so I gave it a try and it
really seems that my UPS is a re-branded Mustek.

with the mustek driver - upsc gives:

battery.charge: 97.5
battery.voltage: 13.6
driver.name: mustek
driver.version: 2.0.3
driver.version.internal: 0.2
input.frequency: 50.1
input.voltage: 228.5
output.voltage: 228.5
ups.load: 014
ups.mfr: Mustek
ups.model: PowerMust
ups.status: OL

upslog gives:

20060326 165042 95.0 228.5 013 [OL] NA 50.1

With the powermust driver (tested the next day)  i get:

battery.charge: 100.0
battery.voltage: 13.7
battery.voltage.nominal: 12.0
driver.name: powermust
driver.version: 2.0.3
driver.version.internal: 1.1
input.voltage: 230.7
input.voltage.fault: 230.7
input.voltage.maximum: 231.1
input.voltage.minimum: 230.7
output.frequency: 50.1
output.voltage: 230.7
output.voltage.target.battery: 220.0
ups.delay.shutdown: 2
ups.delay.start: 3
ups.load: 13.0
ups.mfr: Mustek
ups.model: PowerMust
ups.serial: unknown
ups.status: OL

upslog gives:
20060327 194453 100.0 230.7 13.0 [OL] NA NA

I didn`t have time to do in-depth test, but  I think this UPS will probably work
fine with this software.

Does somebody own a PowerWalker and can acknowledge this?
What additional tests should I do to make sure compatibility is
"sufficient" ?
For example, i`m unsure what driver should I use - I thought "sure - take
powermust" - but why does upslog show less information than with mustek
driver (it shows two fields "NA") ?

Anyway - i`m happy that I seem to have native linux support for my UPS now.

regards

roland k.

systems engineer

ps:
Furthermore, there seems some inconsistency between driver.list and website:

# Network UPS Tools driver.list
#
# This file is used to build the compat.html on the web server.  Any line
# with exactly 4 arguments will be turned into an entry on there.
# Naturally, it is read by parseconf, so the usual escaping tricks are
# allowed if you need to insert something unusual.

Is compat.html really built from this file or is this just outdated information
?
For example, I don`t find information about the fact, that Mustek UPS is known
to NUT. (BTW: can NUT do autodetection? this should help others who don?t have
such luck or which are not happy to do "experiments")

pps:
sorry for crossposting - but i thought this was probably of interest for both
users and developers - and since traffic isn`t very high......
______________________________________________________________________
XXL-Speicher, PC-Virenschutz, Spartarife & mehr: Nur im WEB.DE Club!		
Jetzt gratis testen! http://freemail.web.de/home/landingpad/?mc=021130

> ps:
> Furthermore, there seems some inconsistency between driver.list and
> website:
>
> # Network UPS Tools driver.list
> #
> # This file is used to build the compat.html on the web server.  Any line
> # with exactly 4 arguments will be turned into an entry on there.
> # Naturally, it is read by parseconf, so the usual escaping tricks are
> # allowed if you need to insert something unusual.
>
> Is compat.html really built from this file or is this just outdated
> information ?
I guess the compatibility page is no longer generated from this list. The
fact that 'compat.html' no longer exists, but is now split into
'compat/dev.html' and 'compat/stable.html' is indicative that
something
has changed too.
> For example, I don`t find information about the fact, that Mustek UPS is
> known to NUT.
I agree with you that we should update this file more frequently and
preferably should be generated from the 'driver.list' file. However, I
don't know if this is still possible, since the hosting of the site has
changed a while ago.
> (BTW: can NUT do autodetection? this should help others who
> don?t have such luck or which are not happy to do "experiments")
For a UPS with a USB connection, there is a fair chance that it is
supported via the 'newhidups' driver and autodetected. Other than that,
the answer is 'no' (unfortunately). The serial PnP signatures for UPSes
with a RS-232 interface are not collected presently and many don't even
support serial PnP at all (with a few exceptions, almost all contact
closure type ones).

Autodetection should not be a function of NUT, but rather be build into
the OS, since many more devices may be detected that have no relation to
NUT. Having each project write its own autodetection mechanism is wasteful
then or confusing at best. We have just started investigating if we can
integrate NUT this via HAL, but it is way too soon to see if and when this
will be possible. In the mean time, a configuration wizard that scans for
devices that *do* support serial PnP might be helpful.
> pps:
> sorry for crossposting - but i thought this was probably of interest for
> both users and developers - and since traffic isn`t very high......
In that case it might be better to just post to users, since most
developers will read that too.

Arjen