ubnt CloudKey - refused connection
-
This is a new one to me. Got a new CloudKey with a Unifi switch and nanoHD WAPs. CloudKey would allow me to login to it, but I would get a 'connection refused' when trying to access the controller. Powered it on today and was greeted with a boot loop. I put it in recovery mode and manually updated the firmware; that resolved the boot loop.
But doing an IP scan verified that the fallback IP is being used. When logging into the fall back IP, I just get 'connection refused' from any updated browser and using both HTTP/S.
Any ideas?
-
Might be hardware failure.
-
I have never used one, so I have no idea how to help you troubleshoot.
-
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Might be hardware failure.
I was thinking the same thing. Putting the SD card into another CK did nothing, so I was thinking maybe a bad SD card. I did a factory reboot and left it sitting for about a half hour while I was doing some stuff and filling out an RMA. Suddenly it started performing exactly as it's supposed to. Going to keep my eye on it but it's been solid the rest of the day. Weirdness though; this is only the second CK I've had issues with (another one spontaneously turned off after running for about an hour and refused to come back on).
-
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Might be hardware failure.
I was thinking the same thing. Putting the SD card into another CK did nothing, so I was thinking maybe a bad SD card. I did a factory reboot and left it sitting for about a half hour while I was doing some stuff and filling out an RMA. Suddenly it started performing exactly as it's supposed to. Going to keep my eye on it but it's been solid the rest of the day. Weirdness though; this is only the second CK I've had issues with (another one spontaneously turned off after running for about an hour and refused to come back on).
Any reason you use multiple cloud keys instead of a single online software controller?
-
@travisdh1 said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Might be hardware failure.
I was thinking the same thing. Putting the SD card into another CK did nothing, so I was thinking maybe a bad SD card. I did a factory reboot and left it sitting for about a half hour while I was doing some stuff and filling out an RMA. Suddenly it started performing exactly as it's supposed to. Going to keep my eye on it but it's been solid the rest of the day. Weirdness though; this is only the second CK I've had issues with (another one spontaneously turned off after running for about an hour and refused to come back on).
Any reason you use multiple cloud keys instead of a single online software controller?
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own. If an engineer shows up onsite and needs to take a look at their controller, they can scan the network if they can't easily find what server the software controller is on (I would hope our documentation was better than that though).
Aside from that, I don't want to centrally manage their stuff and tie them to our services anyway. If a customer gets super pissed and fires us, I want them to easily be able to offboard us. It's frustrating when we take on a client and have to rip services away from another provider that locked them in with management. Granted, we rarely lose clients, but I like to structure it that way in case the day ever does come. It's still easily managed though.
-
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
-
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
The shorter answer is I've looked at the hosted option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
-
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
The shorter answer is I've looked at the hosted option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
Do you want the customers accessing it too, so you have shared access? Or is it only for you with multiple tenants?
-
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
The shorter answer is I've looked at the hosted option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
Do you want the customers accessing it too, so you have shared access? Or is it only for you with multiple tenants?
Most of the time (above 90%) it's just us, but there are some places that have onsite IT that might eventually. But honestly I'd say probably just us and tell them they don't have access if delegated access is a pain to configure.
Edit: Except I dislike telling a client they don't have access to their own stuff. Only in instances where a client has taken something down due to lack of knowledge and inadvertently caused an outage. The issue really hasn't come up though.
-
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
The shorter answer is I've looked at the hosted option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
Do you want the customers accessing it too, so you have shared access? Or is it only for you with multiple tenants?
Most of the time (above 90%) it's just us, but there are some places that have onsite IT that might eventually. But honestly I'd say probably just us and tell them they don't have access if delegated access is a pain to configure.
It's easy to configure. I think you're making things 10x harder on yourself.
-
@travisdh1 said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
The shorter answer is I've looked at the hosted option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
Do you want the customers accessing it too, so you have shared access? Or is it only for you with multiple tenants?
Most of the time (above 90%) it's just us, but there are some places that have onsite IT that might eventually. But honestly I'd say probably just us and tell them they don't have access if delegated access is a pain to configure.
It's easy to configure. I think you're making things 10x harder on yourself.
I'll check it out.
-
@travisdh1 said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
The shorter answer is I've looked at the hosted option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
Do you want the customers accessing it too, so you have shared access? Or is it only for you with multiple tenants?
Most of the time (above 90%) it's just us, but there are some places that have onsite IT that might eventually. But honestly I'd say probably just us and tell them they don't have access if delegated access is a pain to configure.
It's easy to configure. I think you're making things 10x harder on yourself.
Aside from just web searching, do you have any particularly useful bookmarks for multiple client configs?
-
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
The shorter answer is I've looked at the hosted option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
Do you want the customers accessing it too, so you have shared access? Or is it only for you with multiple tenants?
Most of the time (above 90%) it's just us, but there are some places that have onsite IT that might eventually. But honestly I'd say probably just us and tell them they don't have access if delegated access is a pain to configure.
Edit: Except I dislike telling a client they don't have access to their own stuff. Only in instances where a client has taken something down due to lack of knowledge and inadvertently caused an outage. The issue really hasn't come up though.
It's not that they don't have access to their own stuff, they don't have access to YOUR system for managing their stuff. It's your stuff, not theirs, in this case. They can always access it in another way.
-
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@scottalanmiller said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
Each client gets their own cloud key. If they have a bunch of servers, at $70 I can't justify each customer not having their own.
$70 seems like a lot for an inferior system. Hosted means better reliability and less effort, for less cost. Let's say you have five customers. That's $350 in non-business class hardware, or $120 / year in hosting fees. So basically three years of hosting for five customers is break even with the hardware in cost.
But with the hosting you have the ability to set up and recover easily. With the hardware, not so much. One creates a lot of expensive labour, while one does not.
I think I'd work it the other way around, even if the dongles were free, I don't think that I could normally justify the small savings versus improvements in reliability, ease of use, and reduction in labour time. Paying $70 for those caveats seems weird. If you had only one user, and they had Internet issues, and were insanely cheap (re: tight wads), then maybe. But for multiple customers?
The shorter answer is I've looked at the hosted option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
Do you want the customers accessing it too, so you have shared access? Or is it only for you with multiple tenants?
Most of the time (above 90%) it's just us, but there are some places that have onsite IT that might eventually. But honestly I'd say probably just us and tell them they don't have access if delegated access is a pain to configure.
You create a new user and assign that user permission to just their site. I need to redo my lab controller, but I won't get around to that till Sunday most likely. I'll try to grab some screenshots to show you, but it's just really easy.
Settings -> Admins is where to create accounts.
Edit: Except I dislike telling a client they don't have access to their own stuff. Only in instances where a client has taken something down due to lack of knowledge and inadvertently caused an outage. The issue really hasn't come up though.
That's why you have backups.
-
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
I have one Unifi Controller with 70 Customers and they have each their own login and can manage it from their end. This one is not hosted on Vultr but rather in AWS but it is working well.
Moving to Vultr though very soon.
-
@dbeato said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
@bbigford said in ubnt CloudKey - refused connection:
option but honestly I just haven't explored it yet for a multi-client setup.
I have one Unifi Controller with 70 Customers and they have each their own login and can manage it from their end. This one is not hosted on Vultr but rather in AWS but it is working well.
Moving to Vultr though very soon.
Yeah, I've worked with a single instance managing 200+ customers. Easy, especially when you can adopt a new AP before taking it on site.
