Cloud hosting Unifi controller
-
@Dashrender said:
Now that they have a linux controller (not sure when that came along) you should be able to get any barebones VM to run this for next to nothing.
I just looked over the specs -it's limited to a single site and 64 APs.
The 'you own your own controller' option is $200/month - no way that make sense for anyone willing to do their own maintenance on the VM.
Linux controller has been out for a long time... at least as long as I've been watching/using their products.
-
For some reason when we first learned about these years ago, I was thinking they only had a windows controller, but it's been a while since I paid attention.
-
@Dashrender said:
For some reason when we first learned about these years ago, I was thinking they only had a windows controller, but it's been a while since I paid attention.
I'm pretty sure that that is true.
-
@coliver said:
That does sound like a lot... I think it would be cheaper to stand up your own EC2 instance to run the controller then 15$ a month... although I haven't run the numbers yet.
Digital Ocean is a good option as well.
DO is cheaper and way easier than EC2. EC2 doesn't let you see the console. Only makes sense if you are using Chef or Puppet or similar.
-
-
I seem to remember a conversation with @JaredBusch stating that he uses one for the office.
-
I use the windows controller right now. It is on a VM in a datacenter. I keep meaning to migrate it to Linux, but that is extremely low on my priority list.
-
If you have a Virtual Infrastructure already internally, I'd just bring up a Ubuntu VM on that.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
If you have a Virtual Infrastructure already internally, I'd just bring up a Ubuntu VM on that.
yeah I could have done that, but that would be a LOT more work than just installing the Windows setup, which I did on one of my DCs.
Why Ubuntu instead of CentOS?
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
If you have a Virtual Infrastructure already internally, I'd just bring up a Ubuntu VM on that.
yeah I could have done that, but that would be a LOT more work than just installing the Windows setup, which I did on one of my DCs.
Why Ubuntu instead of CentOS?
The Ubqitui stuff doesn't run as well on CentOS. How is that all lot more work? Also I would not install the controller on a Domain Controller.
-
@coliver said:
Linux controller has been out for a long time... at least as long as I've been watching/using their products.
It was what came out first, the Windows stuff came later because people complained but, it didn't take them long to bring out the windows stuff. It's all java anyway.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
If you have a Virtual Infrastructure already internally, I'd just bring up a Ubuntu VM on that.
yeah I could have done that, but that would be a LOT more work than just installing the Windows setup, which I did on one of my DCs.
Why Ubuntu instead of CentOS?
The Ubqitui stuff doesn't run as well on CentOS. How is that all lot more work? Also I would not install the controller on a Domain Controller.
Why? FYI I have three DCs, though one is going away really soon.
It's a lot more work because I'd have to download and install a Linux distro before I could get to work setting up the APs. Since I had a Windows platform, it was just - install and done.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
If you have a Virtual Infrastructure already internally, I'd just bring up a Ubuntu VM on that.
yeah I could have done that, but that would be a LOT more work than just installing the Windows setup, which I did on one of my DCs.
Why Ubuntu instead of CentOS?
The Ubqitui stuff doesn't run as well on CentOS. How is that all lot more work? Also I would not install the controller on a Domain Controller.
Why? FYI I have three DCs, though one is going away really soon.
It's a lot more work because I'd have to download and install a Linux distro before I could get to work setting up the APs. Since I had a Windows platform, it was just - install and done.
You really don't want extra applications running on Top of Domain Controllers.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
You really don't want extra applications running on Top of Domain Controllers.
I call BS on this. It is a waste of a VM to be DC only when you are a full windows shop. Running any kind of basic application on a DC hurts nothing and makes more efficient use of your licensing.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
You really don't want extra applications running on Top of Domain Controllers.
I call BS on this. It is a waste of a VM to be DC only when you are a full windows shop. Running any kind of basic application on a DC hurts nothing and makes more efficient use of your licensing.
It's actually a major security issue. We fire people for this. You get two VOSEs with 2012 Standard anyway.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
You really don't want extra applications running on Top of Domain Controllers.
I call BS on this. It is a waste of a VM to be DC only when you are a full windows shop. Running any kind of basic application on a DC hurts nothing and makes more efficient use of your licensing.
We run all of our DCs dedicated.
-
This is the offical Best Pratice related to DCs
these permitted applications and services should be comprised only of what is required for the computer to host AD DS and possibly DNS, plus any system security software such as antivirus software
It's quiet a big security issue with your DCs running other applications.
-
In a small shop, but only quite small, I'd be willing to double duty my DCs, but only with limited, first party services. DNS and DHCP obviously. But file serving for example. I think DC + FS is a common and sensible use of a license in a small shop if the other VM license needs to be used for something else. But things like databases and third party application serving I really never want to see combined on a DC.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
these permitted applications and services should be comprised only of what is required for the computer to host AD DS and possibly DNS, plus any system security software such as antivirus software
Is that the Microsoft quote?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
these permitted applications and services should be comprised only of what is required for the computer to host AD DS and possibly DNS, plus any system security software such as antivirus software
Is that the Microsoft quote?
Yep
