-
I am really sorry! i Made typo mistake. Actually system is
2.7.2-RELEASE (amd64)
built on Fri Dec 8 21:55:00 CET 2023
FreeBSD 14.0-CURRENTnut package 2.8.2
and error is still persists on this setup. This is latest log, and i found it online this morning.
Dec 27 18:42:48 upsmon 57881 UPS RielloSEP2200 on line power Dec 27 18:42:43 upsmon 57881 UPS RielloSEP2200: on bypass (powered, not protecting) Dec 27 18:42:43 upsmon 57881 Communications with UPS RielloSEP2200 established Dec 27 18:42:43 upsd 61706 User local-monitor@127.0.0.1 logged into UPS [RielloSEP2200] Dec 27 18:42:41 upsd 61706 Connected to UPS [RielloSEP2200]: riello_usb-RielloSEP2200 Dec 27 18:42:41 riello_usb 67935 Startup successful Dec 27 18:42:39 upsd 61706 Startup successful Dec 27 18:42:39 upsd 61406 Found 1 UPS defined in ups.conf Dec 27 18:42:39 upsd 61406 Can't connect to UPS [RielloSEP2200] (riello_usb-RielloSEP2200): No such file or directory Dec 27 18:42:39 upsd 61406 listening on ::1 port 3493 Dec 27 18:42:39 upsd 61406 listening on 127.0.0.1 port 3493 Dec 27 18:42:38 upsmon 57881 Communications with UPS RielloSEP2200 lost Dec 27 18:42:38 upsmon 57881 UPS [RielloSEP2200]: connect failed: Connection failure: Connection refused Dec 27 18:42:38 upsmon 57329 Startup successful Dec 27 18:42:38 riello_usb 43008 Signal 15: exiting Dec 27 18:42:38 upsd 34960 Signal 15: exiting Dec 27 18:42:38 upsd 34960 mainloop: Interrupted system call Dec 27 18:42:38 upsd 34960 User local-monitor@127.0.0.1 logged out from UPS [RielloSEP2200] Dec 27 18:42:38 upsmon 33505 Signal 15: exiting Dec 27 18:42:37 upsmon 33505 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 27 18:42:37 riello_usb 43008 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 27 18:42:35 riello_usb 43008 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 27 18:42:33 riello_usb 43008 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 27 18:42:32 upsmon 33505 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 27 18:42:31 riello_usb 43008 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 27 18:42:29 riello_usb 43008 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 27 18:42:27 upsmon 33505 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 27 18:42:27 riello_usb 43008 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 27 18:42:24 riello_usb 43008 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 27 18:42:22 riello_usb 43008 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 27 18:42:22 upsmon 33505 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data staleThanks and sorry again.
Speaking of the devil, just while i was writing this it lost connection.
Dec 28 12:24:12 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 12:24:12 upsmon 8652 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 12:24:10 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 12:24:08 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 12:24:07 upsmon 8652 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 12:24:06 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 12:24:04 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 12:24:02 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 12:24:02 upsmon 8652 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 12:24:00 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 12:23:58 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 12:23:57 upsmon 8652 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 12:23:56 riello_usb 24097 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! -
Hello,
With Pfsense 2.7.0 CE I could get UPS status with the following config.
UPS Type: Local USB
Driver: nutdrv_qx
Extra Arguments to drive:
port=auto
vendorid="0001"
productid="0000"
langid_fix=0x409
protocol="megatec"
subdriver="hunnox"
novendor
noscanlangidUPS is Makelsan. Link below
https://www.makelsan.com.tr/en/ups/urundetay/lion-serisi-650---2200-va/index-500.html
After upgrading Pfsense to 2.7.2 I don't get UPS status. It says "Failed to retrieve status".
Nothing changed. Only upgraded from 2.7.0 CE to 2.7.2 CE.
Any help will be appreciated.
-
@ha11oga11o Your first example appears to be an interface state change. You can see that NUT is explicitly being terminated (signal 15).
There is not enough information in your second example to say anything about.
There is a patch you may try to help with the interface state change:
--- nut.inc.org 2023-11-17 05:42:10.000000000 -0800 +++ nut.inc 2023-12-05 15:20:38.575637000 -0800 @@ -82,14 +82,19 @@ $start .= "\n /usr/bin/killall -q -9 $driver"; } - /* Service status keys off upsmon, so start it first. */ - $start .= "\n /usr/local/sbin/upsmon"; if (isset($driver)) { $start .= "\n /usr/local/sbin/upsdrvctl start &"; - /* Since we are starting the driver in backgroud, give it a moment to start. */ - $start .= "\n sleep 1"; $start .= "\n /usr/local/sbin/upsd -u root"; + + /* + * Since we are starting the driver in backgroud, give + * the driver and upsd a moment to start. + */ + $start .= "\n sleep 1"; } + + /* NB: Service status keys off of upsmon. */ + $start .= "\n /usr/local/sbin/upsmon"; $start .= "\n return 0"; $stop = "echo stopping NUT";Note that after applying the patch, you will need to go into UPS -> settings and press Save in order to activate the change..
-
signal 15 means that i stopped and restarted service. Only then i got it working for some time. Basically, updating box and nut did nothing for me regarding random disconnect.
Im not saying nut is bad, im just trying to figure it out whats going on with my USB link.
Tried 4-5 cables, and have 3 same UPSs... all doing same problem. I could link it via rs232 but, maybe someone cant, so im just reporting what kind of error i have.
Nut service is stable, not crashing and such, so patch is not needed? I think i troubles properly explaining my case. Sorry.
Can you, please tell me, what data you need from my box to have big picture here, and i will provide.
EDIT:
my log is actually flooded with this. I cant see where is beginning and where it is end. Log rotation is too often too.
Dec 28 17:42:21 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:18 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:17 upsmon 92937 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 17:42:16 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:14 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:12 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:12 upsmon 92937 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 17:42:10 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:08 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:07 upsmon 92937 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 17:42:06 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:04 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:02 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:02 upsmon 92937 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 17:42:00 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:42:00 sshguard 18696 Now monitoring attacks. Dec 28 17:42:00 sshguard 54116 Exiting on signal. Dec 28 17:42:00 newsyslog 18014 logfile turned over due to size>500K Dec 28 17:42:00 newsyslog 18014 logfile turned over due to size>500K Dec 28 17:41:58 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:41:57 upsmon 92937 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 17:41:56 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:41:54 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:41:52 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:41:52 upsmon 92937 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 17:41:50 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:41:48 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:41:47 upsmon 92937 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data stale Dec 28 17:41:46 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:41:44 riello_usb 99096 Communication with UPS is lost: status read failed! Dec 28 17:41:42 upsmon 92937 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Data staleThanks
-
@msurg said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
Driver: nutdrv_qx
Extra Arguments to drive:
port=auto
vendorid="0001"
productid="0000"
langid_fix=0x409
protocol="megatec"
subdriver="hunnox"
novendor
noscanlangidThe version of NUT has changed quite a bit. From 2.7.4 to 2.8.1+. It's a major revision of NUT itself.
Things to do:
- Run usbconfig -v to confirm that the UPS is properly attached and recognized.
- Look for error messages associated with your driver in the system log. Not error messages from upsd or upsmon, but the actual driver.
- Remove everything from the Extra Arguments to driver and use auto detection.
- Try the blazer_usb driver.
Beyond that, I would recommend soliciting advice on the networkupstools user mailing list.
-
@dennypage said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
For those of you that are on amd64 based systems (Intel or AMD), and are severely affected by the shutdown on calibration/self-test issue, attached are replacement versions of upsmon and usbhid-ups that you can use until the update is published.
When will the package be updated in the pfSense repository so it becomes updatable from the GUI? Do you have an approximate timeline?
-
@dennypage said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
I will point out one thing that you said that you may wish to reconsider. You indicate that the NAS is the most important thing to have a proper shutdown. I agree with this general sentiment. However, by running the NAS as the NUT primary, you are actually incurring higher risk for the NAS rather than less.
The NUT primary does not initiate a shutdown until all the associated secondaries have logged out of the primary. Assuming a default polling interval of 5 seconds, a pfSense or Linux system will take something on the order of 10-15 seconds before they log out, and another 30-90 seconds to complete a shutdown. This means that the NAS will not begin its shutdown until 10-15 seconds after the UPS declares a low battery. Depending upon configuration and current activity, a Synology usually takes over 2 minutes to complete a shutdown. If the UPS is off in calculating remaining runtime, you run the risk of exhausting the battery before the NAS has completed its shutdown.
If you reverse this situation and use pfSense or a Linux system as the primary, then the NAS will begin its shutdown within 5 seconds. Not only does this give a wider margin of safety for the NAS, it can give an increased margin of safety for the other systems as well. When the NAS shuts down, there is suddenly a lot less load on the UPS, which gives more time for the other systems to complete their shutdown even if the estimated remaining runtime was incorrect.
Thank you for your wise advice. I will follow it. I did not know that the primary waits for secondaries' logout.
Can you please advise me on how to setup pfSense primary with Synology secondary? If I chose UPS Type "Local USB" on pfSense will it serve as a NUT server? I suppose I need to define a user for Synology in upsd.users?
On Synology, do I select UPS type "Synology UPS server"? There are only 3 options: "USB UPS", "SNMP UPS" and "Synology UPS server". While not obvious, only the last option has some sense.
When does one use an "apcupsd" package in pfSense? The description indicates I should be using it since I have an APC UPS.
-
@pfpv said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
@dennypage said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
For those of you that are on amd64 based systems (Intel or AMD), and are severely affected by the shutdown on calibration/self-test issue, attached are replacement versions of upsmon and usbhid-ups that you can use until the update is published.
When will the package be updated in the pfSense repository so it becomes updatable from the GUI? Do you have an approximate timeline?
PRs for the next version are in place, but I expect that the core devs are off this week so the PR will not be looked at until next week. Best guess, one to two weeks.
-
@pfpv said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
Can you please advise me on how to setup pfSense primary with Synology secondary? If I chose UPS Type "Local USB" on pfSense will it serve as a NUT server? I suppose I need to define a user for Synology in upsd.users?
See post #2 in this thread, Notes on remote access to NUT, in this thread for information on how to enable remote access to NUT. At the end of the post, there is a section Notes on Synology which has the name and password requirements for interoperation with NUT on Synology.
@pfpv said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
On Synology, do I select UPS type "Synology UPS server"? There are only 3 options: "USB UPS", "SNMP UPS" and "Synology UPS server".
NUT is the UPS management system on Synology, though they disguise the fact that they are using it. You would select "Synology UPS server" as the type UPS type.
APCUPSD is an alternative to NUT for managing APC UPSs. It does not interoperate with other UPS types, and does not work with NUT on Synology.
-
Hello,
USB connection is totally unstable so i connected it on rs232 port. It works fine so far, but still it says "Status Alert: The UPS requires attention". In logs i cannot find what kind of attention it needs this time. For me all data looks fine. Batteries are ok. temperature is 26C. Is there any way to see on what error is nut referring its statement about attention?
heres latest log:
Dec 29 13:52:00 sshguard 2303 Now monitoring attacks. Dec 29 13:52:00 sshguard 35323 Exiting on signal. Dec 29 13:50:22 upsmon 59353 UPS RielloSEP2200 on line power Dec 29 13:50:17 upsmon 59353 UPS RielloSEP2200: on bypass (powered, not protecting) Dec 29 13:50:17 upsmon 59353 Communications with UPS RielloSEP2200 established Dec 29 13:50:16 upsd 60905 Connected to UPS [RielloSEP2200]: riello_ser-RielloSEP2200 Dec 29 13:50:15 riello_ser 87467 Startup successful Dec 29 13:50:12 upsmon 59353 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Driver not connected Dec 29 13:50:07 upsmon 59353 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Driver not connected Dec 29 13:50:02 upsmon 59353 UPS RielloSEP2200 is unavailable Dec 29 13:50:02 upsmon 59353 Poll UPS [RielloSEP2200] failed - Driver not connected Dec 29 13:50:02 upsd 60905 User local-monitor@127.0.0.1 logged into UPS [RielloSEP2200] Dec 29 13:49:58 upsd 60905 Startup successful Dec 29 13:49:58 upsd 60830 Found 1 UPS defined in ups.conf Dec 29 13:49:58 upsd 60830 Can't connect to UPS [RielloSEP2200] (riello_ser-RielloSEP2200): No such file or directory Dec 29 13:49:58 upsd 60830 listening on ::1 port 3493 Dec 29 13:49:58 upsd 60830 listening on 127.0.0.1 port 3493 Dec 29 13:49:57 upsmon 59353 Communications with UPS RielloSEP2200 lost Dec 29 13:49:57 upsmon 59353 UPS [RielloSEP2200]: connect failed: Connection failure: Connection refused Dec 29 13:49:57 upsmon 59032 Startup successful Dec 29 13:49:57 php-fpm 37711 /nut_settings.php: Starting service nut Dec 29 13:49:57 check_reload_status 4706 Syncing firewall Dec 29 13:49:57 php-fpm 37711 /nut_settings.php: Configuration Change: admin@192.168.1.210 (Local Database): Updated UPS settings Dec 29 13:49:00 php-cgi 86948 servicewatchdog_cron.php: Service Watchdog detected service nut stopped. Restarting nut (UPS monitoring daemon) Dec 29 13:48:30 riello_usb 5395 Signal 15: exiting Dec 29 13:48:30 upsd 97144 Signal 15: exiting Dec 29 13:48:30 upsd 97144 mainloop: Interrupted system call Dec 29 13:48:30 upsd 97144 User local-monitor@127.0.0.1 logged out from UPS [RielloSEP2200] Dec 29 13:48:30 upsmon 95612 Signal 15: exiting Dec 29 13:48:30 php-fpm 2827 /nut_settings.php: Stopping service nutIf that highlight is because of
Dec 29 13:50:22 upsmon 59353 UPS RielloSEP2200 on line power Dec 29 13:50:17 upsmon 59353 UPS RielloSEP2200: on bypass (powered, not protecting)That statement "not protecting" is not true. Its in ECO mode, so its not act like turbine. And works on demand relaying on its switching speed which works rather flawless.
Thank you in advance.
-
@ha11oga11o said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
It works fine so far, but still it says "Status Alert: The UPS requires attention".
Dec 29 13:50:17 upsmon 59353 UPS RielloSEP2200: on bypass (powered, not protecting)
That statement "not protecting" is not true. It's in ECO mode, so it's not act like turbine. And works on demand relaying on its switching speed which works rather flawless.The UPS requires attention because NUT indicates that the UPS is on bypass, which would mean that power has bypassed the UPS protection circuits. This could be either a manual operation, or something automatic in response to an input power issue. Many UPSs have ECO modes, but this should not be reported as being in bypass mode.
Glancing at the manual for your unit, it appears to have a rich automatic bypass capability. Look carefully to see if your UPS is actually indicating that it is in bypass.
In the end, here are the possibilities as I see them:
- The UPS is in bypass mode, and it is reporting correctly.
- The UPS is incorrectly reporting that it is in bypass mode when it is not.
- The UPS is not reporting that it is in bypass mode, but the driver is incorrectly declaring it to be.
If the issue is #2, then you will need to go to the UPS vendor.
If the issue is #3, then you will need to go to the networkupstools folk, or ask the vendor to go to them on your behalf.
-
I see what is problem here. As stated in manual:
"In order to optimize performance, in ECO mode, the load is normally powered by the bypass. If the mains goes out of the permitted tolerance range, the UPS switches to ON LINE operation. If the mains returns within the permitted tolerance range for at least five minutes, the UPS goes back to powering the load from the bypass."And its exactly behaving like that. And thats fine i want it that way. It states "Summary status: On line, Bypass, Charging", its not sending in eg. "ECO mode", which should be unique status. It seems its mix of problem 1 and 2. Sadly i doubt manufacturer care to do anything about it. I just hope networkupstools folks will have time and way to fix this for this line of product. I think all SEPxxx have same function and could be affected with same issue. Also i can be that UPS itself not sending trigger about ECO mode and what it is actually means.
Many thnx for helping me understanding problem. That was really kind of you.
Cheers!
-
Overall, NUT is working perfectly for me.
But it seems that when a gateway bounces, NUT is being disconnected from the UPS and I get a few logs such as:2024-01-12 14:57:34.000 upsmon[53646]: upsmon[53646]: Communications with UPS ups lost 2024-01-12 14:57:34.000 upsmon[53646]: upsmon[53646]: UPS [ups]: connect failed: Connection failure: Connection refused 2024-01-12 14:57:34.000 upsmon[52998]: upsmon[52998]: Startup successful 2024-01-12 14:57:34.000 upsd[84388]: upsd[84388]: Signal 15: exiting 2024-01-12 14:57:34.000 upsd[84388]: upsd[84388]: mainloop: Interrupted system call 2024-01-12 14:57:34.000 upsd[84388]: upsd[84388]: User local-monitor@127.0.0.1 logged out from UPS [ups] 2024-01-12 14:57:34.000 upsmon[54121]: upsmon[54121]: Signal 15: exiting 2024-01-12 14:57:31.000 upsmon[54121]: upsmon[54121]: Poll UPS [ups] failed - Driver not connected 2024-01-12 14:57:26.000 upsmon[54121]: upsmon[54121]: Poll UPS [ups] failed - Driver not connected 2024-01-12 14:57:21.000 upsmon[54121]: upsmon[54121]: Poll UPS [ups] failed - Driver not connected 2024-01-12 14:57:16.000 upsmon[54121]: upsmon[54121]: Poll UPS [ups] failed - Driver not connectedNot sure but It really seems to be related to gateway/interface status changes.
To fix, I have to unplug the USB port from the UPS, reconnect it and then restart NUT in pfSense.
-
@mcury said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
But it seems that when a gateway bounces, NUT is being disconnected from the UPS
Look for a patch earlier in this thread, circa post 107 on December 28th.
[Sorry, permalinks don't appear to be functioning correctly in the forum.]
-
@dennypage said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
@mcury said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
But it seems that when a gateway bounces, NUT is being disconnected from the UPS
Look for a patch earlier in this thread, circa post 107 on December 28th.
[Sorry, permalinks don't appear to be functioning correctly in the forum.]
I applied it today, really thanks for that.
Not only applied the patch, but saved the config again and rebooted just to be safe.Now I'm monitoring it
-
@mcury said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
Not only applied the patch, but saved the config again and rebooted just to be safe.
Yes, you do need to re-save the config. I edited the prior post and added a note indicating that.
-
@dennypage said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
@pfpv said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
I respectfully disagree about Synology. It's just a server that passes UPS messages. It's very stable, does it properly, has worked for years and I haven't seen any complaints. I chose to connect my UPS to Synology because in my opinion it is the most critical piece of equipment to be properly shut down, and it provides a NUT server for other equipment.
I don't disagree that there is a bug in NUT, and I will be looking at that shortly. That said...
I'm in my third generation of Synology equipment. Fifteen plus years. I have handled a number of support issues arising from Synology's NUT implementation, both mine and others. Their NUT implementation started out very straight forward, but over time it has evolved, becoming more and more specialized and complex. With DSM 7.2, it's gotten to the point that I don't consider it to be completely reliable, and view it as a primary of last resort.
I will point out one thing that you said that you may wish to reconsider. You indicate that the NAS is the most important thing to have a proper shutdown. I agree with this general sentiment. However, by running the NAS as the NUT primary, you are actually incurring higher risk for the NAS rather than less.
The NUT primary does not initiate a shutdown until all the associated secondaries have logged out of the primary. Assuming a default polling interval of 5 seconds, a pfSense or Linux system will take something on the order of 10-15 seconds before they log out, and another 30-90 seconds to complete a shutdown. This means that the NAS will not begin its shutdown until 10-15 seconds after the UPS declares a low battery. Depending upon configuration and current activity, a Synology usually takes over 2 minutes to complete a shutdown. If the UPS is off in calculating remaining runtime, you run the risk of exhausting the battery before the NAS has completed its shutdown.
If you reverse this situation and use pfSense or a Linux system as the primary, then the NAS will begin its shutdown within 5 seconds. Not only does this give a wider margin of safety for the NAS, it can give an increased margin of safety for the other systems as well. When the NAS shuts down, there is suddenly a lot less load on the UPS, which gives more time for the other systems to complete their shutdown even if the estimated remaining runtime was incorrect.
The relevant passage from upsmon.conf:
# Also, since the primary system stays up the longest, it suffers higher risks # of ungraceful shutdown if the estimation of remaining runtime (or of the # time it takes to shut down this system) was guessed wrong. By consequence, # the "secondary" systems typically monitor the power environment state # through the 'upsd' processes running on the remote (often "primary") systems # and do not directly interact with an UPS (no local NUT drivers are running # on the secondary systems). As such, secondaries typically shut down as # soon as there is a sufficiently long power outage, or a low-battery alert # from the UPS, or a loss of connection to the primary while the power was # last known to be missing.As a general rule, you want to have systems that represent the highest UPS load and/or longest shutdown time as secondaries, and a system that represents lower load and is fast to shut down as the primary.
I am not done reading the thread but this morning I had my second shutdown of pfSense. Same behavior as OP. I don't have a synology but a Proxmox machine hosting a Debian/Docker server.
At both events, everything stayed on except pfSense that shut down. no router, no LAN.
Going trough the rest of the thread.
-
@NinthWave said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
I am not done reading the thread but this morning I had my second shutdown of pfSense. Same behavior as OP. I don't have a synology but a Proxmox machine hosting a Debian/Docker server.
At both events, everything stayed on except pfSense that shut down. no router, no LAN.
Circa post 104 there are replacement executables that you may use until the next drop of NUT.
-
@dennypage said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
@ha11oga11o said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
With pfSense 2.7.0 and nut 2.8.2 i still have huge problems with Riello 2200.
Something is off with the version numbers here. pfSense-pkg-nut version 2.8.2 requires pfSense version 23.09/2.7.1 or above. Are you sure you are not running pfSense-pkg-nut version 2.8.0?
Edit: In the other thread you started, it appears that you haven't updated anything since Nov 10th. The pattern you are describing is characteristic of version 2.8.0. Did you go through any of the later posts in that thread? @Unoptanio indicates success with the Riello using version 2.8.2 of the pfSense-pkg-nut on pfsense version 2.7.1.
Thanks!
But where is one to copy these files ? I looked under /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin with no avail.
-
@dennypage said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
@NinthWave said in NUT Package (2.8.1 and above):
I am not done reading the thread but this morning I had my second shutdown of pfSense. Same behavior as OP. I don't have a synology but a Proxmox machine hosting a Debian/Docker server.
At both events, everything stayed on except pfSense that shut down. no router, no LAN.
Circa post 104 there are replacement executables that you may use until the next drop of NUT.
Thanks. I did not see it at first.
Are you aware if there is a reason there are no subthreads is Netgate community.
Using Google, I typed "pfsense + the_push_message_when_pfsense_shutdown"
But if I were have been to look under "Nut Package (2.8.1 and above", I may not have read all the 122 messages.
A subthread for this issue would have been greatly appreciated.
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.