back to article In its current state, Ubiquiti's EdgeSwitch won't have much of an edge on anyone

Members of the IT community rave about networking kit vendor Ubiquiti. You'll find praises sung both on Spiceworks and amongst vExperts for their UniFi devices. Unfortunately, my recent purchase of Ubiquiti's latest offering, their EdgeMax EdgeSwitches, has proven that Ubiquiti are also capable of putting out gear that is …

  1. petur

    FAIL?

    I had no trouble at all getting good and fast support from UBNT, much better than other vendors.

    Will buy again, regardless of your personal vendetta

    1. BlartVersenwaldIII

      Re: FAIL?

      I don't think it's fair to call this a personal vendetta; I'm someone else who was all primed to buy this switch but was put off by a raft of poor reviews over quality control and SFP compatibility over at StH:

      Original thread

      Review from the site owner

      SFP compatibility

      Consensus from many of the forum members seemed to be "wait for hardware v2.0 when buying UBNT kit".

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: FAIL?

      I don't have any sort of Ubiquiti vendetta, and will continue to buy and use their UniFi equipment. But the EdgeMax stuff is now three for three on "not working out of box" for me. I think that's worth letting people know about.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby
        Boffin

        @Trevor_Pott Re: FAIL?

        I guess you could say that you get what you paid for?

        I mean its Caveat Emptor. You want to go cheap, be prepared for some issues.

        You are being fair and unbiased. You also kick yourself that you should have done your homework up front. Its the same when purchasing white box vs name brand servers.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: @Trevor_Pott FAIL?

          Except I don't buy that vendor-service axiom at all. We can all of us name plenty of instances in which the cheaper gadget was the superior one. We can all equally name plenty of instances in which you end up paying a fuckload for a brand name, getting nothing better than the competition, because they're both selling the same damned thing.

          You don't get what you pay for. In fact, everyone is trying to screw you and you pay whatever people can scam out of you. Some times the cheaper stuff is the shit choice, and some times it not. But there is little evidence whatsoever that increased price provides a superior product.

          That's why reviews are important. To share knowledge, and to hold the feet of vendors to the fire.

          Vendors can scam some of us some of the time, but so long as free speech exists, they can't scam all of us all of the time.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Trevor_Pott FAIL?

          I would disagree with the 'get what you pay for' also. If you want a low-cost centrally managed WiFi system with no ongoing licence costs the UniFis are remarkable purchase. They have had some slightly rough firmware in the past but Apple devices seemed to be the main culprit and Cisco have had issues with Apple and WiFi as well. I've also had shedloads of trouble with mainstream HP servers and obvious mistakes in their software (response from H, "yeah don't use that do it manually")

          I have deployed a network of hundreds of them and they have performed great - way better than some big names we tried but also about five-ten times cheaper.

          However Ubiquiti does rely on the community a lot and requires a lot of user testing for their new firmware. However the updates do come and get great new features.

          As far as SFP+, it seems like most of the major manufacturers always suggest you use only their branded modules. It's a shame there isn't a better interop standard for them. As for using the DAC - well it's rarely the cable part that causes the issue, it's the electronics and these are still built into a DAC. Ubiquiti should have found a module that works and stated that is the only one the can guarantee at the moment and left it at that until they had produced their own.

    3. UBNT-Brandon

      Re: FAIL?

      Thanks for the feedback!

      Cheers,

      UBNT-Brandon

  2. Robert Carnegie Silver badge
    Joke

    Maybe you're holding it wrong :-)

    I am reminded of various consumer electronics devices - digital TV receivers in particular - that have interesting or qaint ports (RS232?), which, it turns out, do not have a function.

    Currently I use a video receiver box whose "timer" button on the control is more useful than expected given that the box doesn't actually have a timer function. Actually the button reverses the last channel change (including its own). I could re-label it "Wayback", if I was sufficiently bored some evening.

  3. pmb00cs

    Not Impressed with UniFi

    "Members of the IT community rave about networking kit vendor Ubiquiti. You'll find praises sung both on Spiceworks and amongst vExperts for their UniFi devices."

    I too saw the raving about UniFi, and wanted to see what all the fuss was, so when I needed a decent WAP I decided to go down the route of a very expensive experiment with a UniFi AP. I was suitably impressed once I got it, and the UniFi controller software needed to configure it, working. But then all the special enterprisey features appeared to be geared toward an all ubiquity network, and the UniFi software kept telling me my network was broken because I didn't have their switches or routers. I object to that sort of nagging tie-in. And then there were niggles with the AP, it'd work fine most of the time, but at weird times it would stop working for no apparent reason, and then just work again a little while later. Also without the software running the app would last for sometime, and then just forget it's settings altogether (yeah, I should have kept the server up but to just forgot all the existing settings when nothing has told it to change settings isn't great).

    Now using a different (also expensive experiment for me) WAP.

    Not a fan of Ubiquiti.

    1. Fred Dibnah
      Coat

      Re: Not Impressed with UniFi

      MMVaries, with two Unifi APs, which have both worked perfectly. The current one has been running for almost a year without a hitch, apart from a short break for a recent upgrade. I put the server on a Raspberry Pi, but you don't really need the server running at all except at upgrade time, unless you have a complex network or need stuff like guest logins.

      Sadly though, the Ryanair-stylee website experience of a lack of email and phone contact info isn't just confined to Ubiquity, it's becoming all too common.

      Ubiquityous, even. I'll get me coat.

      1. UBNT-Brandon

        Re: Not Impressed with UniFi

        Thanks for the feedback. We're actually really quick to respond on the forums, live chat, and support e-mail (and sometimes, even other's websites).

        Most who end up using our support are pleasantly surprised, and we have many stories of folks who had paid support from other vendors - who like ours better.

        Feel free to reach out to me on the forums (tag UBNT-Brandon) or mention me directly in live support or emailing support@ubnt.com.

        Cheers,

        Brandon

    2. MHammett

      Re: Not Impressed with UniFi

      The UniFi controller absolutely needs a way to disable the platforms you don't intend to use from showing up in the controller.

      UniFi isn't expensive by first world standards.

      I've been UniFi since the first UniFi AP and haven't had any of the issues you describe. I run the controller at all times, but I've heard of others just using it to setup the AP and it's never needed again.

      1. pmb00cs

        Re: Not Impressed with UniFi

        As a full featured enterprise WAP the UniFi is not expensive, it is in fact very reasonably priced, as a domestic WAP, it's a little pricey, but that's my own fault for wanting to play with the expensive enterprisey WAP in the first place. My current WAP is more expensive than the UniFi, again my own fault for wanting to play with advanced features, but is also, in my humble opinion, better. It still has features that try to tie you into the vendor (hence not being happy enough with it to identify it publicly) but it has been a better purchase for me.

        Maybe I was unlucky and got a less than perfect UniFi AP, but the problems all struck me as software type problems rather than hardware type problems.

    3. UBNT-Brandon

      Re: Not Impressed with UniFi

      Hi there,

      Sorry for your poor experience.

      So we're widgetizing the dashboard for this reason - for those who only want to run the WAPs and not the whole ecosystem.

      Happy to help whenever needed - hop on the forums, send an e-mail to support@ubnt.com, or hop on our 24/7 live-chat.

      Thanks,

      UBNT-Brandon

  4. MHammett

    Did you see the build quality issues that have been mentioned in other reviews?

    http://www.mtin.net/blog/?p=1336

    (another one I can't remember)

    ----

    Apparently a standard browser defence loadout of AdBlock, Ghostery and Privacy Badger is enough to prevent it from popping up.

    ----

    Don't use that sort of garbage in the first place, but if you insist, whitelist infrastructure and things you're reviewing?

    Ubiquiti does have a fairly unique (among enterprise vendors) support model. That said, most of their customer base loves it.

    If they don't properly support DACs, I can't fault the reviewer for the conclusion they reached. Half-assed products don't have a place in our industry.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      I whitelist infrastructure that I work on. I don't whitelist public web sites. For security reasons.

    2. UBNT-Brandon

      Ya. Looks like the reviewer had a compatibility problem here on the non-Ubiquiti gear.

      Using these same DACs between our gear they work fine.

      Also - for cross-gear connections, optical SFP/SFP+ is generally recommended as then you can get an SFP/SFP+ specifically tailored to each side of the gear (Fiberstore let's you select the vendor tailoring when you purchase).

      Cheers,

      Brandon from Ubiquiti

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shut noshut is required to clear an error disable condition on all Cisco switches unless you enable the corresponding automatic recovery option. I wouldn't say it was unique to that switch.

    My personal favourite for just working in Cisco land has to be the 4500-X. It'll munch its way through anything we've found down the back of the sofa so far. The only special fail I've seen was a 10Gb module with a complete garbage EEPROM, so not really the fault of the switch.

  6. localzuk Silver badge

    Ubiquiti - always wait

    Always wait for v2 hardware and later release firmware. We run AirFibre 5 wireless backhaul links and have an Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Pro where I work - both work like clockwork. Then, they are more mature products.

    If Ubiquiti manage to get their act together with their switch-gear, I'll definitely be interested in it - Education budgets shrink almost daily, so getting every bit of performance out of every penny is a necessity.

    1. jamesb2147

      Re: Ubiquiti - always wait

      Depends a bit. Their software releases are hit and miss, with frequent regressions (e.g. a current bug regarding OSPF memory leak when links go down that was in releases for the last 9+ months or so).

      The Unifi products seem to be worse off for this as they are more broadly affected by stability problems where the EdgeOS products (read: EdgeRouter line) generally have bugs in specific, advanced features. They're still the cheapest decent way of getting FQ_CODEL that I know of. I love my ER Lite.

  7. UBNT-Brandon

    Ubiquiti Rep

    Hey guys,

    Brandon from Ubiquiti here. Sorry for your trouble. I used these at home with my ES-16-XG:

    - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00WHS3NCA/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

    - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JNEUV7Q/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

    These link my multiple US-48 switches back to the ES-16-XG (and soon to be US-16-XG).

    Both work fine.

    Also - probably worth noting that we sell our own SFP and SFP+ modules.

    Thanks,

    Brandon

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Ubiquiti Rep

      Thank you for posting some cables you believe work. Will Ubiquiti certify their functionality corporately? Also, a few nits to pick:

      1) It would maybe help if these were on your "community list" of supported cables. And, you know, publicly listed as supported on a per-model basis.

      2) This cable you recommended, a 2.5m DAC is $50, which compares pretty poorly to it's $20 counterpart, especially in bulk.

      3) Your products page lists no transceivers or cables for sale. That you sell such things is not mentioned on the community-supported list that your help reps point people to as "the list of things supported". I can find no mention of them in the official help documentation.

      4) In selling your own modules, I fear you may be engaging in giving away the razors at cost and squeezing customers on the cost of blades. If that is the play...

  8. Griffo

    To Be Fair

    Other vendors have problems with SFP+ issues as well. I was gobsmacked when I had to beg EMC to give me a free interface card change for my brand new shiny DataDomain box, as they had two different SFP+ interface boards. One worked ONLY with Optical and one worked ONLY with Twinax.

    This was a $1m unit with $20k interface cards. At least Ubiqiti plan to fix it.

  9. Jon Massey

    STH community Edgeswitch SFP+ transceiver/DAC compatibility list here: https://forums.servethehome.com/index.php?threads/ubiquiti-edgeswitch-es-16-xg-sfp-compatibility-thread.11129/

    Also worth a read on STH is the shocking QC issues found by Patrick https://www.servethehome.com/ubiquiti-edgeswitch-es-16-xg-review-quality-control-absent/

  10. flibble

    Firmware/reliably issues put me off ubiquiti kit

    This seems to be a bit of a theme with the ubiquiti kit; decent hardware (for the money) but overall difficultly getting things actually working properly. It's disappointing to hear these issues spread out to the switches too.

    I have a single unifi WAP and it appears to work great - significantly more reliable than the built in wifi on the Vigor which it replaced. I've been hugely put off deploying anything further though as it seems unifi have persistent issues with firmware, where things frequently only work in beta firmware, but often the beta breaks other things.

    Roaming seems to be a particular issue that unifi simply haven't been able working reliably; there's a ton of complaints out there including this sequence:

    http://www.revk.uk/2016/08/iphone-unifi-dhcp-issue.html

    http://www.revk.uk/2016/08/maybe-it-was-unifi-after-all.html

    http://www.revk.uk/2016/09/unifiapple-getting-worse.html

    If someone with the experience & connections of revk can't get roaming working reliably in a pretty simple domestic environment, what chance do the rest of us stand?

    I'm still looking out for a reasonably priced range of WAPs that work reliably and actually roam properly (suggestions welcome).

    1. UBNT-Brandon

      Re: Firmware/reliably issues put me off ubiquiti kit

      Hi flibble,

      So roaming on Gen2 products was substantially improved in the latest stable release of the UniFi controller.

      It's to the point now where you actually won't lose a single ping under most circumstances. Typical worst-case is a single delayed ping.

      https://www.ubnt.com/download/unifi

      And you can try out the latest controller here (without having to have any hardware):

      demo.ubnt.com

      Thanks,

      Brandon

  11. F. Svenson

    Love the products, the support... not so much.

    I'm fantastically happy with the EdgeRouter and UniFi access points, but their support stinks.

    However, the community is very responsive and my setup has been rock solid.

    This is just the Googleification of support. Try fixing a problem on an OnHub or Google Voice and you'll be familiar with ubnt's support.

    1. UBNT-Brandon

      Re: Love the products, the support... not so much.

      F Svenson,

      Sorry you've have a bad experience.

      Reach out to me on the community (UBNT-Brandon) if you're ever struggling with support.

      We try to be lightning-fast (Jimmy John's style) and go beyond the line of duty to help our customers out.

      Best Regards,

      Brandon from Ubiquiti

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The problem with es-16-xg is not just the SFP+ cables

    Sorry Ubiquiti, but the problem with es-16-xg is not just with the SFP+ cables ! I do have a cable which is on the es-16-xg compatibility list (Cisco SFP-H10GB-CU3M), but it does not work when connected to Dell Intel X520 network adapter. The very same card and cable work just fine connecting to other 10G switches (like the TP-Link ones). Also, the cable can connect the es-16-xg without any problems to these TP-Link 10G switches.

    Interestingly, the cable is recognized by the es-16-xg device (i.e. it is visible in the web console), but no link.

    Asking to buy another 100 USD cable with no guarantee it will work with your network card is just ridiculous. The es-16-xg switch has 12 SFP+ ports, so buying 12 cables (again with no guarantee they will actually work) will cost more than the switch itself.

    Sorry Ubiquity, never ever...

    1. Maventi

      Re: The problem with es-16-xg is not just the SFP+ cables

      The SFP-H10GB-CU3M cables are passive garbage - the symptoms you describe are exactly what I've encountered with a huge range of gear. Throw them in the trash and try active cables instead - you will save yourself hours of frustration.

    2. Tom Womack

      Re: The problem with es-16-xg is not just the SFP+ cables

      This is a comment guaranteed to not fill you with delight, but: have you tried the cable in more than one port on your switch? I have some cables that work only in ports 6 and 8 (and, accordingly, a bag of fibre transceivers winging its way to me from fs.com)

      1. UBNT-Brandon

        Re: The problem with es-16-xg is not just the SFP+ cables

        Tom,

        So I actually tried many of the DAC cables the reviewer used (he sent me a list) and so far all have worked fine when linking between Ubiquiti devices with the cables.

        So we've concluded that the incompatibility isn't with the DACs themselves, but the 3rd-party (non-Ubiquiti) SFP+ endpoints used.

        It turns out I have been actually using several of the DACs for over 9 months with my ES-16-XG - using these between it and my several US-48-XXX and US-160-XG.

        Cheers,

        Brandon

    3. MHammett

      Re: The problem with es-16-xg is not just the SFP+ cables

      "Intel X520" As a user of Intel X520 cards, that's your problem.

    4. UBNT-Brandon

      Re: The problem with es-16-xg is not just the SFP+ cables

      Sorry for your trouble here. Your findings fit with ours.

      We test, and FiberStore tests, compatibility with these SFP and SFP+ modules between Ubiquiti gear to other Ubiquiti gear. We actually emailed FiberStore about this article - and they confirmed our test findings too - that the SFP/SFP+ modules do work w/ our gear (when used with our gear).

      So it sounds here it's DAC SFPs connecting between Ubiquiti gear and non-Ubiquiti gear. For best compatibility across vendors, it's advisable to use non-DAC SFP modules.

      We actually sell some as well:

      https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/fiber/U_Fiber_Modules_FiberCable_DS.pdf

      The 10G SFP+ MM modules are $38 for a 2-pack (so $19 each):

      https://www.streakwave.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=UF-MM-10G&eq=&Tp=&o1=0

      So this solution is actually cheaper than what you are using as well - as you can get a fiber patch cable from fiber store (below) for $2.60.

      http://www.fs.com/products/12018.html

      So not only is this solution more compatible, it's also only $40.60 for a link (not including shipping).

      Cheers,

      Brandon

      Hope this helps.

  13. Maventi

    Thanks for the review Trevor - it's good to hear what experience others have with the range!

    I've deployed a few EdgeSwitch 24s and they have been bulletproof and awesome value for money. The GUI is garbage (as it is on all switches anyway) and the CLI is a little esoteric but once you have it sussed they are pretty damn good value for money. I haven't managed to break them or ever had issues with SFP modules.

    I was considering some of their 10G kit but after reading this I might hold off - there's plenty of choice out there for networking kit these days.

    One point of note I've found with twinax SFP+ cables is that they come in either active (buffered) and passive (wired directly) flavours, but it's not very well advertised. Passive appear to work most of the time, but then you get strange issues where one particular NIC or switch port doesn't work properly. I've yet to come across a switch or NIC that doesn't work with active cables. Just food for thought.

    1. UBNT-Brandon

      Maventi,

      So I'm in the process of testing the SFP+ DACs used in the review.

      So far 100% of what the reviewer tested with have worked. I went to order the list, and actually found out I had been running several of the models of over 9 months in my ES-16-XG.

      The reviewer and I have concluded that the incompatibility seems to be with the non-Ubiquiti devices. Using all Ubiquiti w/ the DACs used works fine (say between ES-16-XG and ES-48-500W, or ES-16-XG and US-16-XG, etc.).

      I hope this helps.

      Best Regards,

      Brandon from Ubiquiti.

  14. MHammett

    FWIW: The best compatibility I've had with modules have come from FiberStore. Sometimes it takes them a time or two to get the vendor coding correct for vendors that care about such things, but they'll work through it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like