On Sep 11, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Mario Lobo <ml...@digiart.art.br> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:31:08 -0400 > Charles Lepple <clep...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 9, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Mario Lobo <ml...@digiart.art.br> wrote: >>> >>> By the constance of header and footer bytes, I think something >>> different is going on now. >> >> Right, this is the resync code that @rpvelloso suggested. >> >> https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/231#issuecomment-138971923 >> >>> It still identifying as a Solis 1.0 (which is not) but at least it >>> is doing it on its own, without gdb. >> >> If I remember correctly, Bruno was mainly looking for OB/LB status, >> so he mapped the APC model to the nearest Solis model. I've CC'd him >> in case he has any other insights. >> >> Bruno, the mailing list thread starts here: >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.monitoring.nut.user/9306 and >> here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.monitoring.nut.user/9317 >> > > Charles; > > Do you think I could try this solis with nut and see what comes up? > > Or you think it is not worth it yet?
The only way we will know if this works is if someone tests it... It looks like the low-battery signal is calculated from the charge. I am not sure what effect the incorrect voltages will have on that calculation (I have not seen any numbers) but if they are all off by a constant factor, it should work. -- Charles Lepple clepple@gmail _______________________________________________ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser