Ubiquiti Beta US-16-XG $299

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

NashBrydges

Member
Apr 30, 2015
86
24
8
57
The switch will retain the controller settings between reboots if the controller is unavailable. And you can still SSH to it using the Site credentials that you configured in the controller (and then you have to 'telnet localhost' to get into the EdgeOS CLI). It won't persist CLI changes between reboots and the L3 stuff isn't there so there's not much point in getting at the CLI anyways.

If you don't like the controller concept, by all means, UniFi ain't for you and that's why they have the two product lines for switching and routing. I never touched the UniFi stuff before coming across this deal but I've gone all-in since -- USG Pro, APs, and I'll snag a couple of US-8s as soon as they hit retail. Single-pane-of-glass management for my whole network and not having to muck with switch CLIs was too great to resist.

As to reliability... I've had the XGs at the core of my home network since I got them and they haven't let me down yet. I work remote and pretty much my whole world revolves around the network and my servers staying up. So far, so good.

What are you using to connect your servers to your US-16-XG switches? Are you running fiber exclusively? Which modules?
 

wildchild

Active Member
Feb 4, 2014
389
57
28
Just tested :
Took backup from controller.
Deleted controller vm

- switch keeps running, is reachable ssh -> internal telnet configureble

Created new vm, installed controller from ubiquiti repo , ungraded to old 5.5.0 beta version, restored backup

Switch and ap's are there,adopted not rebooted.
Statistics are gone, but that is to be expected

Created a second vm, different ip -> restore config.
Updated inform url through ssh
Ap's no reboot
Switch reboot

Funny thing is that "old" controller remains in the config, so effectively a secondairy controller.
If you could automate copy and import config through cron, it would entirely be possible to get controller redundancy.

On to putting iscsi hurt on my switches :)
 

aero

Active Member
Apr 27, 2016
346
86
28
54
fyi, i know nothing about this switch, but mac and arp tables are usually two separate tables. If mac table is also limited to 493...no wonder it's so cheap. Limited use cases.
 

wildchild

Active Member
Feb 4, 2014
389
57
28
Have to disagree..
This is a perfect l2 access switch.
In my probably limited mind you should leave core routing to routers/coreswitches.
Mircotik/cisco's sg series/linksys.. all have max of ~ 500 arp table maximum.
Ubiquiti choose to disable l3 for it's unifi series , because they want it to "just work", without getting complains about routing issues.

In their design vision the leave the routing to their gateway, which to me is also valid choice.
 

whitey

Moderator
Jun 30, 2014
2,766
868
113
41
I believe once you have a controller manage the device that you can no longer SSH to it or at least when I tried the default password no longer worked. Although, even when I could SSH to it, I didn't see anywhere to see or configure it. If you know of a way then I'd be interested in knowing how.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
If it acts anything like typicaly network gear w/ control/data planes if the control plane fails or is accessible/cannot heartbeat the data plane simply is unmanagable (AKA, can't make changes but 'should' be functional to pass traffic).

Who knows though, I don't own one of these, still waiting for my late Christmas present from one of ya'll haha j/k, but that's how a lot of phys/virt switches (n1kv) deals w/ it.

2cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nthu9280

Rand__

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
6,626
1,767
113
And I am still waiting for somebody to be unhappy with it and offload it to me;)
 

wildchild

Active Member
Feb 4, 2014
389
57
28
If it acts anything like typicaly network gear w/ control/data planes if the control plane fails or is accessible/cannot heartbeat the data plane simply is unmanagable (AKA, can't make changes but 'should' be functional to pass traffic).

Who knows though, I don't own one of these, still waiting for my late Christmas present from one of ya'll haha j/k, but that's how a lot of phys/virt switches (n1kv) deals w/ it.

2cents.
Please see my test results :)
 

c6100

Member
Oct 22, 2013
163
1
18
USA
fyi, i know nothing about this switch, but mac and arp tables are usually two separate tables. If mac table is also limited to 493...no wonder it's so cheap. Limited use cases.
Since it is just a L2 switch it wouldn't have an ARP table so it would be the mac table

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

tby

Active Member
Aug 22, 2013
222
111
43
Snellville, GA
set-inform.com
Since it is just a L2 switch it wouldn't have an ARP table so it would be the mac table
The SoC does L3 and has a 493-entry ARP cache limit. Ubiquiti folks have said that's the reason they're positioning the US-16-XG as L2-only -- tho if you squint to read between the lines I suspect it's that the UniFi Controller would need major updating to cope with switches doing routing alongside the USGs. All of the ES switches mention L3 in their datasheets while none of the UniFis do.

The US-16-XG datasheet doesn't list MAC entry limit but the ES-16-XG datasheet shows 8k. No reason to think they'd be different.
 

aero

Active Member
Apr 27, 2016
346
86
28
54
8k mac entries, totally reasonable. Little short on port count for any dense access layer though.

Sure, perfect fit for home and small business.
 

wildchild

Active Member
Feb 4, 2014
389
57
28
Havent tried, but ti be honest , i wont.
Plan to use these as iscsi switches. 2 seperate fabrics, so l2 is enough for me.
I wouldnt use these as core switches anyway.
Not only would the arp table limit be bugging me, it would voit warranty.
Corrently use 3850 with ipservices as core, which is absolutely plenty for my needs.
I'd rather wait for hardware v2, if and when those arrive.

For now, even though i put a world of hurt on these , they keep up with iscsi as i wanted
 
Dec 30, 2016
106
24
18
44
L3 would be nice, but for my needs I just want something that supports IP storage traffic and VLAN trunking so I can connect my QNAP and VMware hosts to 10Gb. I can handle routing outside the switch no problem.
 

acmcool

Banned
Jun 23, 2015
610
76
28
40
Woodbury,MN
How is Es-48-500W as layer 2 switch? Pfsense is doing vlan routing in my setup..
Never mind...I just ordered juniper 3200-48 port..
 
Last edited: