similar to: Just an interesting data point

On 1/27/19 9:13 PM, Charles Lepple wrote: > On Jan 27, 2019, at 2:36 PM, Phil Stracchino <phils at caerllewys.net > <mailto:phils at caerllewys.net>> wrote: >> The new Cyberpower PR3000 (also 3KVA), wqhich operates at a 90% power >> factor, considers this same load to be 43% load. >> >> I wasn't expecting that much of a reduction. > > So... 50%

I'm looking at switching from an APC UPS to a different brand after having had my third SU3000RM in a row blow up power transistors. I'm looking at the Cyperpower PR3000LCDRTXL2U. I see the PR3000E and the PR6000LCDRTXL5U listed as supported, but not the PR3000LCDRTXL2U. Howeverit seems likely that if the PR6000LCDRTXL5U is supported, the PR3000LCDRTXL2U ought to work as well. I've

I switched a while back to a Cyberpower PR3000LCDRTXL2U UPS with an external battery chassis. We've lost power twice since I installed it, and both times, the UPS has killed power to everything while still indicating 80% capacity before NUT has even initiated shutdown on anything. Here's what upsc reports on it right now: battery.charge: 100 battery.charge.low: 35

On Jan 27, 2019, at 2:36 PM, Phil Stracchino <phils at caerllewys.net> wrote: > > SO, my full load on my core UPS is two Dell R610s, one Sun X4540, one HP > DL360p gen8, two six-core Thuban-II workstations plua their monitors, > and the network stack and KVM. > > The APC SU3000RM (3KVA) that blew up last week considered this to be > just short of 60% load. > The new

I have a CyberPower PR3000LCDRTXL2U with a BP48V75ART2U expansion chassis, which I am monitoring using NUT 2.8.0 (on Gentoo Linux). TThe UPS appears to be telling me that the batteries need replacement due to age. CyberPower support has confirmed that for me and told me how i should be able to mute the alarm from the front panel until I can replace the batteries, but it doesn't appear

On 3/21/24 14:00, Greg Oliver via Nut-upsuser wrote: > All I can say is definitely replace the batteries if you are going to > keep using it.? The CyberPower(s) I have had in the past all have the > battery check that cannot be turned off and when the batteries are > actually "dead" the unit will kill the load to everything every time it > runs the check.? Just FYI.

On 2019-12-16 05:34, Roger Price wrote: > On Sun, 15 Dec 2019, Phil Stracchino wrote: > >> I switched a while back to a Cyberpower PR3000LCDRTXL2U UPS with an >> external battery chassis. We've lost power twice since I installed it, >> and both times, the UPS has killed power to everything while still >> indicating 80% capacity before NUT has even initiated

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:23?PM Phil Stracchino via Nut-upsuser < nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > I have a CyberPower PR3000LCDRTXL2U with a BP48V75ART2U expansion > chassis, which I am monitoring using NUT 2.8.0 (on Gentoo Linux). TThe > UPS appears to be telling me that the batteries need replacement due to > age. CyberPower support has confirmed that for

On 1/27/19 9:49 PM, Charles Lepple wrote: > You might be lucky with this particular model, but definitely beware of the USB issues I mentioned in another thread: > > https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22CyberPower+%28CPS%29%22 > > The output of upsc is sorted alphabetically by key, so it isn't immediately obvious which values come

So, a while back I got around to ordering replacement batteries for my CyberPower PR3000LCDRTXL2U. When they arrived, I went to swap them in. I was horrified at the flimsiness of CyberPower's battery "trays". I've seen heavier gauge plastic on "blister" packages in the store. I ALSO discovered that the expansion unit had been shipped to me with one of its two

Well, for a bit of devil's advocate - if the battery swelled, it might hace leaked or fumed, contaminating the device and contacts. The safe approach (for their liability, and for end-users' fire hazard really) is to not claim the device is safe to use anymore. Jim On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 07:11 Ben <bkamen at benjammin.net> wrote: > On 4/1/24 7:37 PM, Phil Stracchino via

On 2019-12-17 06:18, Roger Price wrote: > > I definitely need to check that the vile daemon is present and running. > > In upsmon.conf there are no NOTIFYFLAG declarations, especially for events > ONBATT and LOWBATT. When ONBATT and LOWBATT occur nothing will happen. There > are no NOTIFYMSG declarations and in particular no messages for the ONBATT and > LOWBATT events.

On 3/12/21 9:14 PM, Rusty Bower wrote: > Manager/subscriber seems most accurate > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 12, 2021, at 20:13, Douglas Parsons <doug at parsonsemail.com> wrote: >> >> ? >> In place of secondary how about subscriber? It would be accurate to >> the role. I'd been going to suggest controller and ... something.

On 3/12/21 9:14 PM, Rusty Bower wrote: > Manager/subscriber seems most accurate > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 12, 2021, at 20:13, Douglas Parsons <doug at parsonsemail.com> wrote: >> >> ? >> In place of secondary how about subscriber? It would be accurate to >> the role. I'd been going to suggest controller and ... something.

Helo hostname MUST have resolvable hostname. Crazy or not, but i use this. The _access-allow parts for server you really trust. smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/check_client_access-allow.cidr, reject_unknown_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_invalid_hostname,

On 1/27/19 2:36 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote: > The HCL seems to imply that this UPS should *also* be supported by the > powerpanel driver. However, I see from the documentation that the > powerpanel driver is a lot of best-effort because cyberpower is > uncommunicative about details of the protocol, and also I'm not seeing > in the documentation of the powerpanel driver what type

I didn't go there due to its use by Cisco. On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 PM Baker, Lawrence M via Nut-upsuser < nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > Jim, > > The terminology I recall for that one-to-many relationship is > publisher-subscriber. > > Larry Baker > US Geological Survey > 650-329-5608 > baker at usgs.gov > > > > On Mar 12

I didn't go there due to its use by Cisco. On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 PM Baker, Lawrence M via Nut-upsuser < nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > Jim, > > The terminology I recall for that one-to-many relationship is > publisher-subscriber. > > Larry Baker > US Geological Survey > 650-329-5608 > baker at usgs.gov > > > > On Mar 12

Jim, The terminology I recall for that one-to-many relationship is publisher-subscriber. Larry Baker US Geological Survey 650-329-5608 baker at usgs.gov<mailto:baker at usgs.gov> On Mar 12 2021, at 6:24:38 PM, Phil Stracchino via Nut-upsuser <nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net<mailto:nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net>> wrote: This email has been received from

Jim, The terminology I recall for that one-to-many relationship is publisher-subscriber. Larry Baker US Geological Survey 650-329-5608 baker at usgs.gov<mailto:baker at usgs.gov> On Mar 12 2021, at 6:24:38 PM, Phil Stracchino via Nut-upsuser <nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net<mailto:nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net>> wrote: This email has been received from