Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
Hi, My Centos 5.6 Server ( HP Proliant ML350 G6 ) Server is connected to two UPSes (It has dual power supplies). I want to protect my server when it ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Linux Newbie amithad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sri Lanka
    Posts
    160

    Exclamation CentOS 5.6 and Auto Shutdown when UPS Power is On


    Hi,

    My Centos 5.6 Server ( HP Proliant ML350 G6 ) Server is connected to two UPSes (It has dual power supplies). I want to protect my server when it runs from UPS, and for that I want to shutdown my server when it runs from UPS battery power more than 15 minutes.The backup time is in between 15 to 30 minutes

    Server is connected to two Different UPSes

    1. MGE Pulsar M 3000
    2. Powerware 9120

    I found that Network UPS Tools - Welcome software is available for UPS systems handling for Linux.

    Do I need some additional drivers if necessary to power off my server through a software like NUT? What should be the the configuration I should follow pls?

  2. #2
    Trusted Penguin
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,353
    Go to the NUT Hardware compatibility list, where you can see what they support. I see both of your UPSs listed there, both with a serial port and USB driver option.

    Next try looking for a CentOS NUT UPS howto, here is a nice and thorough one:

    Network UPS Tools (NUT) For USB UPSs On CentOS 5.5 | HowtoForge - Linux Howtos and Tutorials

    It covers device configuration, controlling the daemon, troubleshooting connectivity, etc.

  3. #3
    Linux Newbie amithad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sri Lanka
    Posts
    160
    Dear Artreyu,

    Thanks a lot for all the information . I want to clarify another thing; the given blog, which is a .com site. Is it ok for me to download and install software from that site to my enterprise server, considering the security factor?

    Thanks

    Amitha
    Last edited by amithad; 09-17-2012 at 07:45 AM.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #4
    Linux Newbie amithad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sri Lanka
    Posts
    160
    Dear atreyu,

    I tried installing the packages after downloading those but the following error message comes

    error: geekery-el6-x86_64.repo.1: not an rpm package (or package manifest): for
    rpm -Uvh geekery-el6-x86_64.repo geekery-el6-x86_64.repo.1 geekery-el6-x86_64.repo.2 geekery-el6-x86_64.repo.3 geekery-el6-x86_64.repo.4 geekery-el6-x86_64.repo.5 geekery-el6-x86_64.repo.6 geekery-el6-x86_64.repo.7
    command

  6. #5
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    913
    Looks like you didn't download the right files. Each file should end in .rpm, not .repo.1, etc.

  7. #6
    Linux Newbie amithad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sri Lanka
    Posts
    160
    Yes Mizzie you are correct. Now I downloaded the correct files namely

    nut-2.6.5-1geekery.x86_64.rpm
    nut-devel-2.6.5-1geekery.x86_64.rpm
    nut-cgi-2.6.5-1geekery.x86_64.rpm powerman-2.3.5-2geekery.x86_64.rpm
    nut-client-2.6.5-1geekery.x86_64.rpm powerman-devel-2.3.5-2geekery.x86_64.rpm
    but when I try
    ln -s /lib/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules
    udevcontrol reload_rules
    udevtrigger
    /etc/init.d/ups restart
    http://geekery.blog.com/category/linux/nut-ups-rpms/

    It gives the error
    [root@proxy Downloads]# ln -s /lib/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules
    ln: creating symbolic link `/etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules': File exists
    [root@proxy Downloads]# udevcontrol reload_rules
    bash: udevcontrol: command not found
    Thanks

  8. #7
    Trusted Penguin
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,353
    Quote Originally Posted by amithad View Post
    I want to clarify another thing; the given blog, which is a .com site. Is it ok for me to download and install software from that site to my enterprise server, considering the security factor?
    Hello,

    I'm sorry I missed your question! I'm sure you've already made your decision on this, but I wanted to follow up because it is a good question.

    You are absolutely right to question 3rd party software, especially in a production or high-security environment.

    In general, what I would say is always use software that is in your distribution's official software repository first, if it is available. If it is not, then if the binary package is available from a vendor you trust, then you may want to make sure that the package has signed (with a GPG/PGP key, e.g.). You will need to import their public key into your rpm database so that you may verify and install trusted RPMS. If you find a 3rd party source that you do not know from Adam, and it is close sourced, be wary. You have no idea what the software is doing, before you install it. If it is open sourced, then you (or someone you trust) can examine it to see that it is not doing anything nefarious. There is also the option of building binaries from source, provided that you can get the source, but that is not ideal in many circumstances (but is the only approved method in certain work environments).

    In this particular case, the blog I linked to mentions installing software from either geekery.blog.com, or EPEL. I'll quote EPEL's website:

    What is Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (or EPEL)?

    Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (or EPEL) is a Fedora Special Interest Group that creates, maintains, and manages a high quality set of additional packages for Enterprise Linux, including, but not limited to, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL),CentOS and Scientific Linux (SL).

    I trust the EPEL software as much as I trust Fedora and CentOS, which is to say implicitly. In this case, I would definitely opt for using the EPEL method over the other one. Besides, once you enable the EPEL repo on your CentOS box, you'll have thousands more packages at your disposal.

    Something else to ponder: NOBODY is safe, even the vendors you trust. Fedora's website was hacked, kernel.org was hacked, everybody gets hacked. All you can do is be as well prepared and vigilant as possible. Asking questions like you did is a step in the right direction.

  9. #8
    Trusted Penguin
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,353
    Quote Originally Posted by amithad View Post
    Code:
    [root@proxy Downloads]# ln -s /lib/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules
    ln: creating symbolic link `/etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules': File exists
    well, cleary that symlink destination already exists. let's see what it points to (if anything, it could be a regular file):
    Code:
    ls -l /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules
    also, see if it belongs to a package:
    Code:
    rpm -qf /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules
    Quote Originally Posted by amithad View Post
    Code:
    [root@proxy Downloads]# udevcontrol reload_rules
    bash: udevcontrol: command not found
    The way udev is invoked has changed slightly. Try this:
    Code:
    udevadm control --reload-rules

  10. #9
    Linux Newbie amithad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sri Lanka
    Posts
    160
    Dear Atreyu,

    Many thanks for you valuable information

    I tried your suggested command and the output is as follows

    [root@proxy ~]# ls -l /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules
    lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 37 Oct 21 18:32 /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules -> /lib/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules
    [root@proxy ~]# rpm -qf /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules
    file /etc/udev/rules.d/62-nut-usbups.rules is not owned by any package
    [root@proxy ~]# udevadm control --reload-rules
    [root@proxy ~]#
    Thanks a lot

    Amitha

  11. #10
    Trusted Penguin
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,353
    Quote Originally Posted by amithad View Post
    I tried your suggested command and the output is as follows
    Okay, the symlink that was already there was correct. It is not owned by any package, but that's okay, too.

    Your udev command did not output any errors so that is good, too (if it works properly, it normally doesn't output anything).

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •