OnHub
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's what I do, except that I use a 48 port smart switch so that I get extra visibility and a lot more ports. I am a big believer in being wired whenever possible.
How many devices do you have that you need 48 ports? What features do you need that my simple TL-LINK would not provide you?
-
A ton, it's actually nearly filled. APs, phones, video game consoles, computers, servers, storage devices, it adds up really quickly. Plus some ports are used to go to unused, available ports around the house.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
A ton, it's actually nearly filled. APs, phones, video game consoles, computers, servers, storage devices, it adds up really quickly. Plus some ports are used to go to unused, available ports around the house.
Cool! Upload a picture so we can see
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
A ton, it's actually nearly filled. APs, phones, video game consoles, computers, servers, storage devices, it adds up really quickly. Plus some ports are used to go to unused, available ports around the house.
Cool! Upload a picture so we can see
-
That was it early on before we put in the larger switch and had all of the wiring done.
-
This is along the same lines as a Blackhawk or that d-link spaceship router with a million antennas.
For ~$50 more you could buy a small Sophos UTM. Or save money like Scott said and get all ubiquiti.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That was it early on before we put in the larger switch and had all of the wiring done.
Wow, hope you cleaned up the wiring.....
-
Selling the house, not putting too much effort into it now.
-
@scottalanmiller Leaving the Network switches behind?
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller Leaving the Network switches behind?
Yes. The house would be mostly unusable without them.
-
@johnhooks said:
For ~$50 more you could buy a small Sophos UTM.
Never, ever, buy a UTM, from any vendor. I hate the entire concept of putting everything in a single device.
@johnhooks said:
Or save money like Scott said and get all ubiquiti.
No. This listed device contains an AC chip. It is impossible to do this with Ubiquiti and be cheaper. The lowest I have ever seen their UAP-AC go for is $250.
-
@anonymous said:
The perfect home setup is:
1) Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X
http://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-EdgeRouter-Advanced-Gigabit-Ethernet/dp/B00YFJT29C/2) Ubiquiti Networks UniFi AP
http://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Networks-UniFi-Enterprise-System/dp/B004XXMUCQ/3) TP-LINK TL-SG108E 8-Port Gigabit Easy Smart Switch
http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-SG108E-8-Port-Gigabit-Tag-Based/dp/B00K4DS5KU/This is a solid home user setup alright as long as you do not need/want the AC functionality.
I will have to remember that TP-Link switch, though. That is a nice price point for the feature set.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I am a big believer in being wired whenever possible.
I fall in this camp. Wired performance will always be better than wireless.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@johnhooks said:
For ~$50 more you could buy a small Sophos UTM.
Never, ever, buy a UTM, from any vendor. I hate the entire concept of putting everything in a single device.
Like a hypervisor?
-
@johnhooks said:
Like a hypervisor?
No, like a UTM in your router.
-
@johnhooks said:
Like a hypervisor?
not sure what you mean. How does a hypervisor put lots of things on one device?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Like a hypervisor?
not sure what you mean. How does a hypervisor put lots of things on one device?
Multiple vms on one physical device, unless you have HA.
-
@johnhooks said:
Multiple vms on one physical device, unless you have HA.
That is not even close to the same thing and being intentionally obtuse about the discussion.
-
@johnhooks said:
Multiple vms on one physical device, unless you have HA.
Physical device is not the same as mixing code or functions in a single container. Hypervisor also does not imply running multiple VMs, only hardware abstraction. HA doesn't change anything that I can tell, not sure what you were meaning by that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Multiple vms on one physical device, unless you have HA.
Physical device is not the same as mixing code or functions in a single container. Hypervisor also does not imply running multiple VMs, only hardware abstraction. HA doesn't change anything that I can tell, not sure what you were meaning by that.
I was assuming he meant it was a single point of failure, which is why I said that.
