Seamless roaming
-
Docker thing then?? Never seen such an issue.. If I would have a beef about the settings - it would be that are not different per site ;) I have my site, and my sons on the same controller.. And when I set column for my devices/clients - and then switch to his site the settings are the same.
Would be nice if they were independent..
But they for sure saved, and when I come back even after closing the browser completely they are there.. But not sure if they are cookie based, or something in the controller itself.. Never had need or desire to look into ;)
-
@johnpoz Doesn't seem a container thing, as of today i am using another container, which has the latest version.
-
From this
https://community.ui.com/questions/5-10-12-Stable-Release-Not-Saving-User-Interface-Changes/1dd1d1b2-7bdf-4a9d-a0dd-76f62a6b53b3?page=1
Which sounds exactly like you problem - its a cookie related thing..
So something in your browser settings?
edit: So took a look at the cookies, and yeah they are right there what columns you have selected, etc..
-
@johnpoz Thanks for digging that one up. I think it's a "faux pas" that settings and customization are stored using cookies and not in the controller. As I also purge cookies, using a few plugins so, I tried to whitelist the ip address of the controller, disabled them -nothing then configured FF until now zilch, keep trying...
-
Yeah the debate of where to store such settings could be seen from both sides I think..
But since they are stored in cookies and you have settings to remove cookies, or filter them I would have to believe that is why your seeing the issue your seeing with your settings not surviving sessions..
I am not seeing such issues, but I don't delete cookies and have the settings in FF set in "Enhanced Tracking Protection" just on standard. Nor any addons or such, or any 3rd party security software that would mess with cookies..
-
@johnpoz Solved and this is one in the category " if at first you don't succeed ;)
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1200198
the only thing that worked was
For #2:
You can use the Exceptions button on the Options page, but the formatting can be particular. It may be easier to use the Permissions panel of the Page Info dialog while you're on the site that should be allowed to set cookies. You can call that up using either:
right-click a blank area of the page and choose View Page Info > Permissions
(menu bar) Tools menu > Page Info > PermissionsScroll down to "Set Cookies" and uncheck the "Use default" box, and then select the permission you prefer (in this case, "Allow").
Changes are saved as you go, so you can close this dialog when you're finished.
-
....and added it to the community ;)
https://community.ui.com/questions/5-10-12-Stable-Release-Not-Saving-User-Interface-Changes/1dd1d1b2-7bdf-4a9d-a0dd-76f62a6b53b3?page=2
-
Nice way to give back!
-
@johnpoz I just saw update beta 5.24.0.11950, do you use auto update or not?
-
I never auto update anything ;) But yeah I updated to 5.24 on my 3 AP... have not updated my son's flexHD as of yet.. waiting for good time to take his network down ;) Just in case something goes wonky... He is working from home and he would kill me if he lost internet because of me updating his firmware remotely ;)
Most of the updates seems geared towards the new uap 6's but everything working fine on that firmware on my 3 aps..
-
@johnpoz I'm using that 5.24 firmware, found it to be stable.
However, the throughput in my 5GHz network is around 300Mbps using the 80MHz width.
In previous firmware, I was getting around 550mbs in 80MHz .
My RF scan is working, but it seems that it's only working in MTK chips, like nanohd.. -
-
@Qinn Hello Qinn, I didn't try that yet
-
@Derelict said in Seamless roaming:
Put different access points up with the same SSIDs on the same layer 2 networks and have a cocktail.
Controllers can try to steer clients to different radios but it is ultimately up to the clients.Without a controller, the client has to log onto each AP as needed and once connected won't let go until the signal is too weak. With a controller, the client logs onto the controller and dumb APs act essentially as a bridge. This means the time to transfer between APs is shorter and smoother. Also, a controller can control which AP a client uses, simply by sending traffic for that client through the desired controller. It can also observe the client signal at multiple APs, to determine which is the best to use. Cisco APs, out of the box, must be used with a controller and cannot work stand alone. If you want to use it stand alone, you have to load different firmware.
-
@JKnott said in Seamless roaming:
Also, a controller can control which AP a client uses, simply by sending traffic for that client through the desired controller.
Huh? That is not how unifi works at all.
-
@mcury said in Seamless roaming:
@johnpoz I'm using that 5.24 firmware, found it to be stable.
However, the throughput in my 5GHz network is around 300Mbps using the 80MHz width.
In previous firmware, I was getting around 550mbs in 80MHz .
My RF scan is working, but it seems that it's only working in MTK chips, like nanohd..Regarding the info above, for the 40MHz and 80MHz speed test, it seems that I could be wrong about it.
Someone there in the ui.com forum, did a test and he got higher speeds than me..
I'm still trying to identify what is happening here.. -
What speed you see is going to have lots and lots of variables to be sure.. Just because user X gets speed Y, doesn't mean you will see the same speed even if using the same AP, same firmware and even same client.
If you were getting better speed with firmware A, then run firmware A and not B - unless there is something in B that you really really want/need. Then when firmware C comes out - try that one.
To me the difference on say a phone or tablet between 300mbps and 550 is pretty pointless - since anything you do on such a device is going to be way lower than that ;) Even streaming a 4k movie would require less than 100mbps for example.
-
@johnpoz Yes, but it's strange, he is getting twice speed as me..
I'm stuck somehow at 300Mbps, he got 613.. I'll try another firmware to be sure about this..
Unfortunately I can't test right now, otherwise my family would ban me from my house
-
What was the PHY his client was connected at? Going to be a big different if your at 866.7 and he was at 1300 (3 streams)... Which could be the case and could explain his 600 number.. Which seems pretty freaking high for a 867 PHY.. 70% real world bandwidth seems a bit unlikely.. But if at a 1300 phy, then 613 is more in the realistic area of the overhead for wifi.
-
According to his post, he was using an Apple device, 866/866Mbps
https://community.ui.com/releases/UAP-USW-Firmware-5-24-0-11950/74e3acca-9a22-4fa0-b76c-c654854638d4#comment/418023aa-13b2-43b0-b2b0-7fc94de12ad3