The somewhat-new Ubiquiti Unifi express router/AP has the controller software built in to control other devices such as WiFi APs (UBNT APs require a controller in order to load/manage the configuration). It’s apparently limited to controlling a maximum of 4 other devices, but I have no clue why.
Unless there is something I am missing, I see no reason why it couldn’t support a virtually infinite number of other devices, since, at least as I understand it, all that software does is store the APs configuration and pass that configuration off to those devices whenever it changes.
Is this some kind of ploy to get people to pay for their new $10/month service?
Ya, the limit does suck. It is artificially software limited to be a low end device for homes that just need it and 1-2 more APs plus a single switch. So capped in a way to be their low end device, with a low end price point. Otherwise it would canabalize sales from more expensive products.
Nope, as the Express has to be managed by the built in controller so paying for cloud hosted controller wouldnt do anything to its limit. This is another limitation of Unifi, devices with built in controllers must use that controller to manage the gateway. If you want to control multiple gateways then you should be only buying gateways that do not come with a controller built into them like the UXG series.
The Ultra is much better option than Express, as it can add lots to it and has more performance. its one downside for the lower priced market is that it has no built in AP like the Express so you likely will want to add the price of an AP at the router location as well.
I just installed an Ultra at a very large house last weekend with 9 APs and two Ultra switches and it is performing fairly well. With all the features turned on it gets around 1.1gbps download speed.
Right, I’m not arguing that anything you said is false, but it doesn’t really answer the question…
If all the device (the ones with the built-in Unifi controller software) does is store a configuation and occassionally hand that configuration to the other devices, why would there be a limit of 4 devices that it can manage?
The only thing that I can imagine is that this is a completely artificial, intentionally-implemented limitation. To what ends? I have no idea.
There are many use cases for something like the Unifi Express where the user might need to manage in excess of 4 devices, but doesn’t want to spin up a controller. For example, suppose you had an office with 4 APs and a switch. Does it really make sense to spin up and manage a controller just for that? Not really. Is having to pay $10+/month just for the controller really reasonable? Also no.
The Java mongodb bullshit they run on the controller is a shinny pretty piece of bloat. So they put that limitation to avoid people complaining about performance I think.
I’m pretty sure it can be managed by another controller though so you can run it on a Linux machine or docker container.
Is it really so shitty that it can’t support, say, 20 devices?
The controller does more than just push the configuration but I imagine the limit is mostly artificial, I expect to push non-home users to the higher tier routers.
Or they just want to avoid everyone buying the cheapest gateway available. They have the dream router also there would be little reason for that device if there is a smaller cheaper version that would do the job for your home if it wasnt for the 4 device limit.
While hardware specs arent published for it, the general consensus is that it shares the same specs as the UXG-Lite, which is a dual core Arm A53 at 1 GHz and some DDR3L memory. So yes, it is a VERY low end device, on the same scale as decent consumer routers from 6-8 years ago. While I do think the 4 device thing is an artificial limit to segment products, I also think it really cant process traffic from a network any larger than what those 4 devices would likely provide with modern day speeds.