upgrade went well! container is working great once I got my issues sorted out!

On 11/23/2023 at 6:22 PM, wgstarks said:

Suggestion: Edit the first post and add links to GitHub and dockerhub right at the top. I know the link for tags is contained in the post but putting both links right at the top really improves findability.

This was done to the best of my ability.

13 minutes ago, PeteAsking said:

This was done to the best of my ability.

At least they’ll be easy to link to in a reply even if nobody ever reads them.😆

Can't wait to see this as delta/stable 🙂

Appreciate all the work you have done. Tried messing with the linuxserver docker using mangodb and it was a complete mess. This template was comparatively a breeze to setup and get started. 

 

Good work! I will be following. Is there anywhere I can support you guys and buy you a beer?

6 hours ago, Qwenton said:

Appreciate all the work you have done. Tried messing with the linuxserver docker using mangodb and it was a complete mess. This template was comparatively a breeze to setup and get started. 

 

Good work! I will be following. Is there anywhere I can support you guys and buy you a beer?

If you donate to a charity that supports a good cause like children in Ukraine or just any cause you feel strongly about or just even to Unicef or some other organisation then you have done more than 99.99% of people and everyone can raise a beer to you for your generosity. 

Just updated to this Unifi Network Controller container.  Installed it and restored 8.0.7 backup file with no issues noted so far.  Thank you.  An all-in-one container is much preferred to the split docker container path LSIO has implemented.

 

Now the biggest question is how long Ubiquiti will support self-hosted controllers without severely limiting them.  They have taken the first step towards that with their latest hardware and controller releases.  It looks like they are going to start favoring their own hardware and cloud controller solutions for some advanced features and not supporting them with self-hosted controllers. 

 

Now to wait for the new UXG-Lite to come back in stock at ui.com so I can replace my very old USG router/gateway. The new Unifi Express (built in network controller) is not an option because it supports a maximum of five connected Unifi devices (access points, switches, other Express units in a mesh configuration, etc.) and I currently am managing eight (plus USG) with this controller.

 

NOTE: just learned the Unifi Express supports only four additional devices as the Express itself counts in the 5-device limit. 

Edited December 3, 20232 yr by Hoopster

27 minutes ago, Hoopster said:

 

 

Now the biggest question is how long Ubiquiti will support self-hosted controllers without severely limiting them.  They have taken the first step towards that with their latest hardware and controller releases.  It looks like they are going to start favoring their own hardware and cloud controller solutions for some advanced features and not supporting them with self-hosted controllers. 

 

 

What features are missing? Personally would never change from opnsense to an inferior firewall so unclear what features are removed you are alluding to. 

1 minute ago, PeteAsking said:

What features are missing? Personally would never change from opnsense to an inferior firewall so unclear what features are removed you are alluding to. 

Unifi Teleport VPN and Site Magic for this round.  This is the first time a Unifi self-hosted controller has not been equal to one running on Ubiquiti hardware or their cloud controller.

 

"Teleport is a zero-configuration VPN that allows you to instantly connect to your UniFi network from a remote location. Users with a Next-Gen gateway or UniFi Cloud Gateway running UniFi OS can access it from Network Settings > Teleport & VPN."

 

Here is a quote from a recent review of the UXG-Lite that expresses some concern for where this may be headed:

 

It’s interesting these features are not supported on self-hosted UniFi Network application installs. It seems like an indication of where they are guiding their customers. The UniFi Network software has always been available for free, but this is the first time a feature line has been drawn between self-hosted and “officially” hosted. It’s possible that more features like this are added over time.

 

Essentially, for a few of the newest and fanciest features, self-hosted controllers aren’t included. These limitations make some sense, but calling it out on the spec sheet makes it feel like a purposeful design choice and business decision. Maybe there is a technical challenge I’m not seeing, but it feels like a subtle way to encourage hardware sales. At best, it is disappointing. At worst, it’s a sign that self-hosted controllers are becoming second class citizens.

Probably the vpn is established on the unifi router so understandable it would not exist if you dont have one.
 

I believe you cant use floor plan in the wifiman app if you dont have a unifi router so maybe this isnt the first time anyway. I wouldnt worry all that much about it. They are gimmicky features anyhow. 

Edited December 3, 20232 yr by PeteAsking

1 minute ago, PeteAsking said:

Probably the vpn is established on the unifi router so understandable it would not exist if you dont have one.
 

I believe you cant use floor plan in the wifiman app if you dont have a unifi router so maybe this isnt the first time anyway. I wouldnt worry all that much about it. They are gimmicky features anyhow. 

Yep.  The missing features on self-hosted controllers are of no concern to me now.  I just hope it does not become a trend with things I do want/need.

3 minutes ago, Hoopster said:

Yep.  The missing features on self-hosted controllers are of no concern to me now.  I just hope it does not become a trend with things I do want/need.

If unifi go out their way to destroy their brand then the usual happens. Everyone just moves to another product when their devices eventually get too old and life goes on. We have seen this happen enough times to enough companies at this point to no longer need to worry. We know someone will eventually just make something better for free and screw the next big company over because we can and always will be able to. Thats why they resent us. Because we are just better than them. And we love it. 

This worked great.  Transitioned from the soon-to-be unsupported "other" app, and had been trying to migrate to the mongo hosted version, and that was just a nightmare of frustration.   Tried this docker this morning, and it just works.   Thanks.  

5 hours ago, Thunder7ga said:

Tried this docker this morning, and it just works.   Thanks.

Yes, @PeteAsking has done a great job putting together this container.  No offense to him, but if he can make this all-in-one docker container which just works, why does LSIO feel they have to go the separate MongoDB route?  I am certainly pleased that someone stepped in to save us from that.

18 minutes ago, Hoopster said:

why does LSIO feel they have to go the separate MongoDB route?

https://info.linuxserver.io/issues/2023-09-06-unifi-controller/

Yes but this is a meaningless statement that does not actually explain what the issue actually is:

 

”Due to the way in which Ubiquiti package and distribute their software our Unifi Controllercontainer has reached a point where we cannot upgrade to newer supported packages without making breaking changes to the image.”

 

I can read this and still have no idea what they are talking about. 

34 minutes ago, PeteAsking said:

I can read this and still have no idea what they are talking about.

Exactly.

On 12/2/2023 at 5:21 AM, PeteAsking said:

If you donate to a charity that supports a good cause like children in Ukraine or just any cause you feel strongly about or just even to Unicef or some other organisation then you have done more than 99.99% of people and everyone can raise a beer to you for your generosity. 

Donation granted

Thanks @PeteAsking For the new template as well as clear instructions.

 

After reading through a bunch of the earlier (pre-new-thread) posts i was sure it was going to be a painful experience, but it was not the case. I was all done in about 15 minutes. I gave bridge network a run initially just to see if it would work, it didn't (i had my old stuff on a br0 network anyway). Quick switch of network to further duplicate what I already had and I was all set, nil further required after the config restore.

8 hours ago, Qwenton said:

Donation granted

Thank you

5 hours ago, Joshndroid said:

Thanks @PeteAsking For the new template as well as clear instructions.

 

After reading through a bunch of the earlier (pre-new-thread) posts i was sure it was going to be a painful experience, but it was not the case. I was all done in about 15 minutes. I gave bridge network a run initially just to see if it would work, it didn't (i had my old stuff on a br0 network anyway). Quick switch of network to further duplicate what I already had and I was all set, nil further required after the config restore.

Thats great. A few people helped iron out some of the early kinks so good to hear the experience is improving. 

My current Unifi Controller (linuxserver.io) is running on Network Type: Custom: BR0.30 (VLAN 30).  Will this pose a problem when I switch to the reborn container?

 

Also, will the restore also restore the SSL certificate (self signed) that I had configured so my browser doesn't complain about the HTTPS? 

Edited December 10, 20232 yr by mifronte

4 hours ago, mifronte said:

My current Unifi Controller (linuxserver.io) is running on Network Type: Custom: BR0.30 (VLAN 30).  Will this pose a problem when I switch to the reborn container?

 

Also, will the restore also restore the SSL certificate (self signed) that I had configured so my browser doesn't complain about the HTTPS? 

Hi,

 

no it wont be a problem but you will need to change the networking to be exactly the same prior to restore or devices will not be adopted as they will see a different ip and refuse to accept the new controller. 
 

I actually have never tested the self signed certificate during a restore but I imagine you would have to recreate this and it is not part of the restore process. 

Is there a recommended version of the controller that I would need to be at before switching from the linuxserver.io container to the reborn container?  I am currently on 7.2.95.

14 minutes ago, mifronte said:

Is there a recommended version of the controller that I would need to be at before switching from the linuxserver.io container to the reborn container?  I am currently on 7.2.95.

I switched from 7.3.83 without any issues. Since they’re two completely separate containers you can just stop the current one, after getting your backup, and then go through the process to install the replacement. It’s easy to revert back if you have issues.

Edited December 10, 20232 yr by wgstarks