Hi fellows,
2006/7/29, Daniel Richard G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, 2006 Jul 28 16:12:35 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>...
Anyway, the disagreement comes down to this:
Me: Keep the system minimally running, so that it powers off when the UPS
cuts the power, so that it will turn on again when the power returns, given
the default behavior and limitations of PC hardware. Do sensible steps to
avoid data loss (stop the disks, etc.). Have this be the default, as PC
users are the common case.
You: Do a normal system shutdown. Rely on server-grade features (e.g. WOL
packet from a networked UPS) to resume operation, or an "On/Off state: ON"
BIOS setting (despite the problems associated with that). Have this be the
default, as the risk of data loss from fragile storage media trumps that of
system unavailability after an extended outage.
Mr. Quette will have to decide this, but I don't think you've made a strong
case for a power-cut being significantly detrimental to data or hardware.
Yes, there are circumstances where this can happen, but these are
exceptions to the rule. And in one well-known case (RAID arrays), the
scripts can easily do something different.
> > I think you'll take issue with the NUT documentation, then, as it
> > specifically suggests this approach.
>
> I will. But maybe, perchance, the NUT docs don't suggest you do it unless
> you own hardware that cannot do it properly? I didn't read it yet.
I'm getting the impression that "hardware that cannot do it properly," as
you mean it, includes most PCs and non-server machines. Your view carries
the day if NUT's userbase is not mostly these.
The point you're talking about is a long standing problem I haven't
yet found a *perfect* solution for.
As you have well stated both, hardware difference, the huge number of
UPSs setup and bios default configuration make it hard (or impossible)
to find The Solution.
Just to avoid misunderstanding: NUT relies by default upon hardware to
be halted, and (BIOS) configured to power on on AC restored.
I'll thus leave the patch, but disable it in -2 (scheduled for release
by tomorrow), referecing the present thread as a WARNING.
When I'll get more time (too busy for the moment with NUT bridging to
HAL, some major code rewrite and internal projects), I'll restart 2
sub project (NPS - NUT Packaging Standard, and QA - Quality Assurance:
https://alioth.debian.org/pm/?group_id=30602) and try to find The
Solution. While the former will focus on NUT integration (ie halt
procedure), the latter will focus on reliability of the UPS poweroff
and such things (like finding upstream workaround for dumb UPSs to
address power races).
Thank you both for your constructive feedback, and don't hesitate to
add more comments.
Arnaud
--
Linux / Unix Expert - MGE UPS SYSTEMS - R&D Dpt
Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - http://www.networkupstools.org/
Debian Developer - http://people.debian.org/~aquette/
OpenSource Developer - http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
