Missing Health data for Eaton 9PX UPS vs Eaton 9130 UPS

[therantis]

Wasn’t sure if I should add this here or in the Device section but since the UPS is properly detected by OS I thought I would start here.

I have a large fleet of Eaton 9130 UPS’s that have the following “state” health sensors.

I have a a couple newer Eaton 9PX UPS’s that have fewer health sensors. This is causing the UPS health to be reported as good when in fact it isn’t. In this case I have a 9PX indicating that it’s battery check failed but due to the missing health sensors librenms is not able to alert me.

Here are the active alerts on the UPS itself.

Both models are using SNMPv1 and my librenms deployment is on the current branch updates.

I’m at a loss on how to resolve the missing sensors

[laf]

If you are having troubles with discovery/polling include the pastebin output of:

./discovery.php -h HOSTNAME -d | ./pbin.sh
./poller.php -h HOSTNAME -r -f -d | ./pbin.sh

[therantis]

For the Eaton 9PX

Discovery
https://p.libren.ms/view/fd4af90f

Poller
https://p.libren.ms/view/1477251c

[laf]

So that sensor you are seeing is because this os has rfc1628 compatibility enabled which means it’s using some generic sensors. I’m guessing this model doesn’t actually support them.

We’d need a full snmpbulkwalk to see what’s available to us: snmpwalk -OUneb -v1 -c COMMUNITY HOSTNAME .

[therantis]

Here is the pastebin for the snmpwalk.

https://p.libren.ms/view/44093c69