We have a bunch of sensors installed in a remote building. When we left the building a few months ago, the sensors were successfully transmitting data to the server. Then the gateway got unplugged and plugged back in after a few weeks. Now we only receive a few of the sensors.
Looking at the live Lorawan frames in the gateway, it seems the sensors are still transmitting and reach the gateway, but the messages are just ignored.
I deactivated the frame counter check. Anyway, I don’t think it makes a difference because with a message every 20 minutes I don’t think we reached the maximum value. Also, we don’t get frame counter errors and it is clear they have been deactivated, as the “activation” tab reads
This device has not (yet) been activated.
We’re still trying to figure out why we’re in this state and how to get out of it.
My understanding (from this thread) is that devices are responsible for rejoining when receiving too many errors / not enough acks. Perhaps the devices we’re using don’t do that, which would be a device issue, I suppose. The devices we use there are Ursalink UC11-T1 and EAGLE 1500(80).
Since we got data from those sensors in the past, they must have been working at some point in Chirpstack. Looks like the sensors still use the devAddr they were provided during the last join, but somehow Chirpstack lost trace of it. How would that be possible? Does Chirpstack forget active devices after a delay? Reading comments around this one, I understand Chirpstack server reboot shouldn’t affect OTAA. Besides, there are sensors we are still receiving.
Anyone has a clue what we could do that wouldn’t involve restarting each sensor manually? (That would be an issue because remote building + sensors in private areas.)
Should this situation be blamed on the devices not joining when being ignored, or is there anything we could have done wrong?
Any hint welcome. Assuming we manage to get physical access to all sensors to reboot them, the whole system seems very week if it can’t handle a gateway power or connection loss so there must be something we’re missing, here.