search for: 240ish

...sion. odd for output.L2.current, vs L3, given that voltage seems to be L1/L3 vs L2. Probably the first voltage is mapped to just 'voltage' and probably it would be better to use the L1/L3 voltage. Similar for output.voltage. output.current should probably be average if output.voltage is 240ish. Or better yet > Note that the "output.current" value matches the L1 output current, > ignoring the L2 current. Perhaps that is a clue that the overall > "input" and "output" values are not meaningful in this case? yes, and they are perhaps mapped from som...

....current, vs L3, given that voltage seems to be L1/L3 >vs L2. > >Probably the first voltage is mapped to just 'voltage' and probably it >would be better to use the L1/L3 voltage. Similar for output.voltage. > >output.current should probably be average if output.voltage is 240ish. >Or better yet > >> Note that the "output.current" value matches the L1 output current, >> ignoring the L2 current. Perhaps that is a clue that the overall >> "input" and "output" values are not meaningful in this case? > >yes, and they...

...n that voltage seems to be L1/L3 > vs L2. > > Probably the first voltage is mapped to just 'voltage' and probably it > would be better to use the L1/L3 voltage. Similar for output.voltage. > > output.current should probably be average if output.voltage is 240ish. > Or better yet > > Note that the "output.current" value matches the L1 output current, > ignoring the L2 current. Perhaps that is a clue that the overall > "input" and "output" values are not meaningful in this case? >...

Hi -- I am monitoring via the SNMP driver an APC SmartUPS that has split phase (2L + neutral) 240V input and 120/120 volt outputs. The data for the voltages is not what I'm expecting, and I am wondering how I should interpret it. Here is an example from upsc: input.L1-L2.voltage: 121 input.L2-L3.voltage: 120 input.voltage: 121.20 output.current: 5.90 output.L1-L2.voltage: 119

...gives me 123MB/sec. Raid0 was giving me 270/8 =33Mb/sec with cpu to spare (roughly half on what each individual disk should be capable of). Here I''m getting 123/4= 30Mb/sec, or should that be 123/3= 41Mb/sec? Using 30 as a basline, I''d be expecting to see twice that with 8 disks (240ish?). What I end up with is ~135, Clearly not good scaling at all. The really interesting numbers happen at 7 disks - it''s slower then with 4, in all tests. I ran it 3x to be sure. Note this was a native 7 disk raid-z, it wasn''t 8 running in degraded mode with 7. Something is really...