What feature would you like?
The ability to allow other hardware (servers/switches/routers/firewalls/desktops/ect) to be assigned to a given UPS via the already in place runs on nesting structure.
What problem does it solve?
There is presently the functionality to add "system" resources to a UPS, but that isn't really consistent with how a UPS would be deployed. Ideally it would be possible to assign other hardware resources to a given UPS using the already in place "runs-on" property. This would make it much easier to map all of the NUT (Network UPS Tools) servers/clients to their respective UPS. Additionally, if an optional field were added to hardware items, something like, "Estimated Power Draw", one could then have a central way for mapping and estimating the load on a given UPS.
I am personally regretful that my C# skill is not sufficient to quickly implement this feature myself. This is remarkable useful and helpful software.
Where would this apply?
Both
Screenshots or mockups (optional)
No response
What feature would you like?
The ability to allow other hardware (servers/switches/routers/firewalls/desktops/ect) to be assigned to a given UPS via the already in place runs on nesting structure.
What problem does it solve?
There is presently the functionality to add "system" resources to a UPS, but that isn't really consistent with how a UPS would be deployed. Ideally it would be possible to assign other hardware resources to a given UPS using the already in place "runs-on" property. This would make it much easier to map all of the NUT (Network UPS Tools) servers/clients to their respective UPS. Additionally, if an optional field were added to hardware items, something like, "Estimated Power Draw", one could then have a central way for mapping and estimating the load on a given UPS.
I am personally regretful that my C# skill is not sufficient to quickly implement this feature myself. This is remarkable useful and helpful software.
Where would this apply?
Both
Screenshots or mockups (optional)
No response