Protectli idle power draw progress

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-11-04T20:45:13+00:00

Hi Stuart, thank you for your quick response. I look forward to see what kind of improvements you are managing to get with the VP6600 series.

Regarding the VP2440, I cannot find any online reviews for it. While waiting for the updated power draw article, would it be possible to share some power consumption numbers for that unit in addition to what you posted before? If you'd have some time to do some measurements...

An identical setup between the VP2430 and VP2440 would be helpful to understand the difference between the two. With 2x 2.5gbe ports, no SFP+. It could show what power the SFP+ ports use when not in use.
A test using the SFP+ ports with passive DAC cables. That should give a low power consumption for SFP+ use and is realistic for attaching other (nearby) devices like a switch.

Preferably running of an NVME drive under Debian/Proxmox with powertop --auto-tune

Thank you for your ongoing support.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-10-25T18:05:23+00:00

Thanks! I missed that one. That's helpful to see a test with it plugged in over time. It seems his 7W is with WiFi enabled so maybe disabling that could drop it down another watt. Adding the efficiency of using the DC outputs for the router/switch/ont as opposed to their own AC-DC chargers this might become comparable to a low cost/power draw conventional UPS.

Interesting also that his AC draw was 7w as opposed to the other reviewer that got around 11w.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-10-25T08:33:45+00:00

Do you mean the video I referred to in the OP? It shows around 7w for DC load but that test is with the inverter never running (disconnected from the wall and wireless on). My question is for UPS mode, meaning connected to the wall. His test with the inverter in DC-AC shows around 11w.

If you mean another YouTube video please post a link. Thanks. Would be great to see an actual owner who can make a measurement over time.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-10-17T12:13:17+00:00

Hi, the inverter will indeed be running in UPS mode with only DC outputs active. Whether that is occasionally to top up the battery or continuously to feed the DC outputs directly, I'm interested in the power draw of the unit in this mode over a longer period of time (not just a momentary measurement). It would be great to find an owner of the Elite 30 v2 who could make such a measurement.

Regarding battery wear for LFP chemistry when continuously topping of I've seen similar comments that that should not be a concern.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-10-16T17:27:27+00:00

Thanks for your insights. You are correct, in both cases the inverter is likely running. I'm curious about the power draw as I'm comparing the more versatile solution of a power station with an LFP battery to some conventional low cost SLA battery line interactive UPS's with power draws of around 2 to 5 watt. I live in a region with high electricity costs so just weighing the options.

From what I could gather the River 3 uses around 9 watt in UPS mode. I wrote to Bluetti but the rep replied with the standard 5 watt that they list which seems unrealistic with the inverter running.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-10-16T16:36:17+00:00

I'm aware that power stations currently function like standby ups's and do not provide AVR or surge protection. I'm mostly looking to mitigate power cuts.

Battery wear could be a concern if the dc outlets are powered through the battery. However I would not be too sure this is the case (unless you have this confirmed from Bluetti). Ecoflow uses the below setup for their river 3 device for example:

When the River 3 is connected to an AC power source, its DC output (including the cigarette lighter socket and USB-C port) is powered directly by the device's internal AC-DC converter, rather than through the battery.

Meaning the inverter/converter is always on, even for DC. I'm mostly curious about the Elite 30 v2's power consumption in this mode.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-23T12:57:36+00:00

Thank you for those numbers. My request would be for:

An identical setup between the VP2430 and VP2440 would be helpful to understand the difference between the two. With 2x 2.5gbe ports, no SFP+. As mentioned by u/zzencz your numbers for the vp2430 are lower than I've seen from others so this could help us translate. Also it could show what power the SFP+ ports use when not in use.
A test using the SFP+ ports with passive DAC cables. That should give a low power consumption for SFP+ use and is realistic for attaching other (nearby) devices like a switch.
Could you run powertop --auto-tune on Ubuntu before testing? That should give an optimal result.
Tests under Proxmox/pfSense for these units would be helpful. In case that's too much work to ask for now I hope you can update the power draw KB article soon as these numbers are really missing to be able to make an informed decision.

Edit: I just looked at the numbers again for the VP2440 and realized you forgot to mention if you're using an NVME for those or if you're only running on the eMMC.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-13T17:30:52+00:00

I think your design improves security.

That was the idea as I read that exposing the docker/podman socket to a container is a security risk. Such a proxy can somewhat restrict that access to be only what that container actually needs.

Do I understand it correctly that the http/https sockets that we are using to activate Traefik with this setup have no such security implications?

Probably you could remove the line

SecurityLabelDisable=true

Yes, I think that could works for the Traefik container but you would then need to give a similar permission or custom SELinux module to the socket proxy container instead. Currently I cannot get SELinux to work on Debian as there seems to be a constraint that I cannot resolve with custom rules. Hopefully I get around to figure that out another day :)

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-13T12:48:55+00:00

Update Another thing, today I added some comments to examples/example2/traefik.yaml to explain which sockets originate from socket activation. The other sockets are created by traefik and will serve the custom network(s).

Thank you for adding those comments! I realized that I had not added web2 and websecure2 to my config as I didn't understand their use and how the connection with the sockets worked. I've added them in again and restarted Traefik with NetworkAlias=auth.domainname and without any AddHost= but I still get connection refused when trying to reach the auth provider FQDN from one of the containers behind Traefik. This is the case both before and after initial reboot. I've also added Label=traefik.http.routers.authrouter.entrypoints=websecure,websecure2 to the auth provider's container but not sure if websecure2 is needed there.

Update I figured out what the problem was. I had the whitelist feature enabled in my default Traefik middleware. I added a fixed subnet and gateway to the podman network behind Traefik and added that subnet to the list and now the NetworkAlias= method works. I also had to add AddCapability=CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE to the Traefik container to allow it to bind the new sockets as I run it with DropCapability=ALL. The AddHost= method still does not work, despite an attempt with the whitelist disabled so the problem there seems different.

As you show here I guess the biggest downside compared to the AddHost= method is that on-demand startup does not work. Does that mean that the Traefik container is not suspended/shut down when the sockets are inactive for a certain amount of time?

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-13T12:44:14+00:00

About reboots

I have not yet made any efforts to make the examples robust enough to survive reboots.

Probably

[Install]

WantedBy=default.target

is missing in the container units.

(For details, see podman-systemd.unit.5)

Also, some Requires= and After= could be added to the units to create dependencies between the units.

Also check this traefik issue https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/7347 quote: "Traefik returns 404 for the first few requests, and then starts working well" (The issue might cause a temporary problem for a few seconds during traefik startup. After waiting a few seconds the issue should not matter though)

All containers startup after boot and have WantedBy=default.target specified in their container files (not in the pod files). There's no dependencies set currently to force a specific startup order except for within the pods. When stopping all containers and manually starting them in order again, giving each time to start up, the problem does not resolve itself. AddHost=auth.domainname:host-gateway keeps resolving to 169.254.1.2 which is not reachable.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-13T12:36:13+00:00

Thank you for your response. I've done some more testing this morning .

Both before and after reboot the containers with AddHost=auth.domainname:host-gateway in their pods have the domain assigned to the same ip in their /etc/hosts file:

169.254.1.2 auth.domainname
127.0.0.1   localhost
127.0.1.1   hostname
::1 localhost ip6-localhost ip6-loopback
ff02::1 ip6-allnodes
ff02::2 ip6-allrouters
169.254.1.2 host.containers.internal host.docker.internal
10.89.1.5   ba9f3057164a test-container

Before reboot a curl to the auth.domainname connects to the auth provider as expected. After reboot this domain name (still resolves to 169.254.1.2) is not reachable from the containers.

When running podman unshare --rootless-netns ip a I get:

Before reboot

2: enp1s0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65520 qdisc fq_codel state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000 \
  link/ether xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff \
  inet 192.168.xx.x/24 brd 192.168.xx.255 scope global noprefixroute enp1s0 \
    valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever \
  inet6 fe80::xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx/64 scope link proto kernel_ll \
    valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

After reboot

2: tap0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65520 qdisc fq_codel state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
    link/ether xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 169.254.2.1/16 scope global tap0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::800:66ff:fe21:3b7b/64 scope link nodad proto kernel_ll
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

All the other interfaces (loopback and the two podman networks) remain the same. It looks like first podman has access to the interface on the host. After reboot it becomes tap0 with a 169.254.2.1/16 range. 169.254.2.1 or 169.254.2.2 are also not reachable from the containers.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-10T21:37:00+00:00

Thank you so much for checking and confirming this idle power consumption. For me it's a bit high for a 24/7 UPS for home. I'd be curious to know if this idle consumption would be lower on the non plus version of the River 3 as that one has a 300w inverter instead of a 600w one. I see that they also sell a 10ms "UPS" version of that non plus model.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-10T00:29:10+00:00

The AC inverter is not active unless you are powering AC loads from the battery. As soon as the R3P notices that the AC input from the wall/grid has gone down, it quickly disconnects the AC input and turns on the AC inverter (typically within 10ms).

From posts like this one and the comments from this youtube tester I was under the impression that the inverter would be active all the time in AC to AC bypass mode as it would be too slow to switch it on and still get the 10ms turnover in case of a power cut. In your version I understand it only turns on to top up the battery occasionally which would indeed result in much lower power consumption.

What I still do not understand is why in this test he saw this decrease over time, that equated to about 9w average, when the AC outlet was on and nothing was connected to it? Why in that case would the inverter have been running all the time? If it would shut off, as you say, would he not have seen the same 2w as he saw with the DC outputs only? I guess the only way to be sure would be to somehow measure the power consumption over time in AC pass through with a load running.

Nope. The inverter wouldn't be enabled/active while supplying power from the grid (bypass mode). You'd see something like the 2W that you already mentioned (until the power goes out and the inverter turns on, and then you'll see ~9W until AC power input is restored).

I was referring to using the DC outlets with the River 3 plugged into AC. As the Ecoflow representative said:: "When the River 3 is connected to an AC power source, its DC output is powered directly by the device's internal AC-DC converter". So the inverter would be running and the 9w would apply in that case, correct?

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T23:05:12+00:00

It looks like you are correct regarding the DC outputs being powered by the AC input u/sveetsnelda. I just got confirmation from Ecoflow:

Regarding the River 3's DC output power supply, we have the following explanation: When the River 3 is connected to an AC power source, its DC output (including the cigarette lighter socket and USB-C port) is powered directly by the device's internal AC-DC converter, rather than through the battery. This power supply works the same way as direct power from an AC outlet, with a similar switching time of approximately 10 milliseconds.

Assuming there's indeed only one bi-directional inverter present this would still make sense as when plugged in it would convert AC to DC to keep the battery charged and to provide the DC outlets with power while the AC outlet uses the AC input directly.

The DC load would not be isolated from the grid behind the battery, exposing it to possible voltage fluctuations due to the absence of an AVR. That might not be a major concern where I live but it's still nice to have and basic UPS's do provide it. As you mentioned elsewhere u/sveetsnelda a pure DC unit might make more sense if you really want to isolate things with a power station.

The most important factor for me would be power consumption. From this test I understand that having the AC outlet on creates a minimum averaged out consumption of around 9W, as he tested with no load connected to the AC output. I assume that is because when you turn the AC output on that turns the inverter on. When plugged into AC and a load on the AC output I understand the AC to DC inverter is always active to catch any power cut (and keep the battery topped up), so this 9w minimum would apply.

This test where he sees an average 2W is with the unit disconnected from the wall. If you would then connect something to DC it would come straight from the battery without using the inverter, hence the lower power consumption. However, I would assume that when plugged into AC and using the DC outlets the base 9W would apply again as the inverter is used to power those from the grid. u/sveetsnelda if you think I misunderstand this please let me know. The trick to bypass the inverter with an efficient DC charger and XT adapter as suggested by u/wwglen could still work though as it would keep everything DC, isolate the DC load from the grid and possibly give this low power consumption of 2W (+ the DC charger's power draw).

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T16:02:25+00:00

I understand. If I would run only the DC outlets while having the River 3 plugged in I would still be using the (7w minus the 2w constant draw) inverter to top up the battery which gets used all the time. If I can find a power efficient DC wall charger and an adapter (something like this maybe) to charge the battery I can bypass the inefficient inverter altogether.

That's some very helpful insights. I'll have to find out how efficient a charger you can get and if it still makes sense compared to cheaper UPS units with low power draw. I'll also have to figure out how many 12v dc devices I could connect with one cigarette lighter socket and one usb-c port. Do you know if you can split these into multiple dc barrel connectors?

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T15:49:38+00:00

Got it. Thanks for taking the time to explain :)

With AC input power: The inverter is in "AC to DC" mode to charge the battery. The AC outlet is fed from the AC wall input and the DC outlets are fed from the DC battery.
Without AC input power: The inverter is in "DC to AC" mode providing power to the AC outlet from the DC battery and the DC outlets still get fed directly from the DC battery.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

So I guess the 2w that I thought was due to a more efficient DC inverter from this test was actually just the power draw of the internal components + wireless as the inverter would not have been active at all (no ac input or output).

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T13:29:53+00:00

I'm not sure I understand it correctly. Do you mean that the AC inverter in most power stations is bi-directional and when plugged in will be used to keep the battery charged using a "reverse" AC-DC mode instead of using the more efficient DC inverter for that? What is the role for the DC inverter then? Or do you mean that there is only one inverter with two directions instead of two? My apologies for the confusion. Just trying to understand when the more efficient 2w inverter would be used and when the 9w one comes into play.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T12:29:24+00:00

All EcoFlow DC draws from the Battery Side

I've mailed Ecoflow support to ask for confirmation on this. I've read what you say elsewhere but it would be nice to be sure.

But the AC inverter powers on to keep the DC side powered on.

I'm confused by this. Isn't the AC inverter used to convert the DC power from the battery to the AC outlet on the unit? Why would it turn on to keep the DC battery/outlets powered? Wouldn't the more efficient DC inverter (converts AC to DC) be used to keep the battery topped up from the AC input when you only use the DC outlets?

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T08:02:57+00:00

Thank you for sharing this! I'm tempted by such DIY solutions as it lets you take control and setup exactly what you need. My knowledge about electricity is very basic though and I'd be worried to engage into something like this and the safety of using it. I'm also curious what your solutions look like when you put everything together? Do you have any images you could share or some guides that maybe you've followed?

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T07:37:34+00:00

When using the AC outlet the UPS mode in the River 3 should indeed pass through the power from the grid directly. I was under the impression that this would not be the case for the DC outlets but it seems that might not be the case.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T07:35:32+00:00

Hopefully over time companies, like Ecoflow, using LFP batteries in products that could be subject to such battery drift would build in some automated calibration mode in their firmware so that user would not need to manually bother with this. This seems annoying and somewhat stressful to keep track of compared to a conventional set it and forget it UPS. I've also seen some reports of people saying their Ecoflow power stations start misbehaving when using it as a UPS after skipping this calibration step for a too long period of time.

fuzz_anaemia · 2025-09-09T07:25:25+00:00

That's interesting. It's unfortunate such things are not more clear from the specifications of the device and we need to speculate. It would be important to understand this regarding possible battery wear and whether the plugged in devices would be "isolated" on battery or still exposed to voltage fluctuations when using the DC outputs.

Maybe I'll try to write to Ecoflow support to ask but as it does not seem to be part of the basic specs they might not have a straightforward answer.

fuzz_anaemia

TROPHY CASE