OnHub
-
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.
-
@johnhooks said:
I was assuming he meant it was a single point of failure, which is why I said that.
No, it's about mixing workloads. There is a lot of value to "do one thing, do it well." UTMs don't do this. Everything is mashed onto one box. Rather like people throwing every little workload onto a NAS. It isn't designed for that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
I was assuming he meant it was a single point of failure, which is why I said that.
No, it's about mixing workloads. There is a lot of value to "do one thing, do it well." UTMs don't do this. Everything is mashed onto one box. Rather like people throwing every little workload onto a NAS. It isn't designed for that.
Oh OK. Makes sense. Sorry @JaredBusch I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I promise.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Rather like people throwing every little workload onto a NAS. It isn't designed for that.
Ha like Synology putting web servers and DNS servers on their NAS units?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No, it's about mixing workloads. There is a lot of value to "do one thing, do it well." UTMs don't do this. Everything is mashed onto one box. Rather like people throwing every little workload onto a NAS. It isn't designed for that.
*cough* Synology *cough*
-
@JaredBusch said:
*cough* Synology *cough*
Yeah, but all of them in that general category do it too. None of them advise it, all of them allow it.
