v1.3.7 FINAL bug reports and comments

[rockhead]

Same DC12 as I had the Ligo oddity on when first installed :-(

[sirhc]

Same DC12 as I had the Ligo oddity on when first installed :-(

I am not sure I follow you on this?

[designweb]

I was a bit confused this is a new switch WS24-400B upgraded to 1.3.6 it shutsdown POE port1 AF24, so lost link as I thought that happened on other models, I upgraded to 1.3.7rc and this is the log, it shutdowns port 1 again, each new connection the smart test reports each cable faulty.that worked fine on previous Extreme Switch on that tower Just installed 1.3.7 and now I am locked out login no longer works, neither the one used to log in today to upgrade to 1.3.7 or default, I now have to go to tower and reset and reconfigure.
Is the method going forward, that I read in these reports that each upgrade will require a power cycle to stabilise new firmware, this will make me think about purchasing anymore or perhaps I just keep to the firmware that had no graphics on the status page as that did appear more stable across my thirty switches

Nov 9 10:00:03 switch[1715]: Detected cold boot
Nov 9 10:00:05 switch[1715]: Port 1 has link, disabling PoE
Nov 9 10:00:08 switch[1766]: Detected cold boot
Nov 9 10:03:44 UI: VLAN 8 PortSettings: changed from 'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEETEEEEEEEEEE' to 'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEETEEEEEEEEET'
Nov 9 10:03:44 UI: VLAN 9 PortSettings: changed from 'TEEEEEEEEEEEEEETEEEEEEEEEE' to 'TEEEEEEEEEEEEEETEEEEEEEEET'
Nov 9 10:07:10 UI: Port 1 MTU: changed from '1528' to '9216'
Nov 9 10:07:10 UI: Port 2 MTU: changed from '1528' to '9216'
Nov 9 10:07:10 UI: Port 3 MTU: changed from '1528' to '9216'
Nov 9 10:07:10 UI: Port 24 MTU: changed from '1528' to '9216'
Nov 9 10:13:46 UI: Port 2 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Nov 9 10:13:48 switch[1766]: PoE enabled on port 2, PoE Smart is starting cable check
Nov 9 10:13:53 switch[1766]: Port 2 cable check results: Open, Open, Ok, Ok
Nov 9 10:13:53 switch[1766]: Port 2 passed PoE Smart cable check, turning on power
Nov 9 10:13:53 switch[1766]: Port 2 failed PoE Smart cable length check (BAD CABLE OR END)
Nov 9 10:16:50 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Nov 9 10:16:53 switch[1766]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting cable check
Nov 9 10:16:59 switch[1766]: Port 3 cable check results: Open, Ok, Ok, Ok
Nov 9 10:16:59 switch[1766]: Port 3 passed PoE Smart cable check, turning on power
Nov 9 10:16:59 switch[1766]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable length check (BAD CABLE OR END)
Nov 9 10:19:11 UI: Port 4 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Nov 9 10:19:11 UI: Port 4 MTU: changed from '1528' to '9216'
Nov 9 10:19:13 switch[1766]: PoE enabled on port 4, PoE Smart is starting cable check
Nov 9 10:19:18 switch[1766]: Port 4 cable check results: Open, Ok, Open, Open
Nov 9 10:19:18 switch[1766]: Port 4 passed PoE Smart cable check, turning on power
Nov 9 10:19:18 switch[1766]: Port 4 failed PoE Smart cable length check (BAD CABLE OR END)
Nov 9 10:21:21 UI: Port 5 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Nov 9 10:21:21 UI: Port 5 MTU: changed from '1528' to '9216'
Nov 9 10:21:25 switch[1766]: PoE enabled on port 5, PoE Smart is starting cable check
Nov 9 10:21:30 switch[1766]: Port 5 cable check results: Ok, Ok, Ok, Abnormal termination
Nov 9 10:21:30 switch[1766]: Port 5 passed PoE Smart cable check, turning on power
Nov 9 10:21:30 switch[1766]: Port 5 failed PoE Smart cable length check (BAD CABLE OR END)
Nov 9 10:25:27 UI: Port 6 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Nov 9 10:25:27 UI: VLAN 7 PortSettings: changed from 'TTTTEEEEEEEEEEETEEEEEEEEET' to 'TTTTTTTETEEEEEETEEEEEEEEET'
Nov 9 10:25:27 UI: VLAN 9 PortSettings: changed from 'TEEEEEEEEEEEEEETEEEEEEEEET' to 'TEEEEEEUEEEEEEETEEEEEEEEET'
Nov 9 10:25:32 switch[1766]: PoE enabled on port 6, PoE Smart is starting cable check
Nov 9 10:25:37 switch[1766]: Port 6 cable check results: Open, Ok, Open, Ok
Nov 9 10:25:37 switch[1766]: Port 6 passed PoE Smart cable check, turning on power
Nov 9 10:25:37 switch[1766]: Port 6 failed PoE Smart cable length check (BAD CABLE OR END)
Nov 9 10:26:15 UI: Port 7 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Nov 9 10:26:18 switch[1766]: PoE enabled on port 7, PoE Smart is starting cable check
Nov 9 10:26:23 switch[1766]: Port 7 cable check results: Open, Ok, Ok, Open
Nov 9 10:26:23 switch[1766]: Port 7 passed PoE Smart cable check, turning on power
Nov 9 10:26:23 switch[1766]: Port 7 failed PoE Smart cable length check (BAD CABLE OR END)
Nov 9 10:30:47 UI: Port 9 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Nov 9 10:30:50 switch[1766]: PoE enabled on port 9, PoE Smart is starting cable check
Nov 9 10:30:55 switch[1766]: Port 9 cable check results: Open, Ok, Abnormal termination, Ok
Nov 9 10:30:55 switch[1766]: Port 9 passed PoE Smart cable check, turning on power
Nov 9 10:30:55 switch[1766]: Port 9 failed PoE Smart cable length check (BAD CABLE OR END)
Nov 9 10:31:11 UI: VLAN 7 PortSettings: changed from 'TTTTTTTETEEEEEETEEEEEEEEET' to 'TTTTTTTTTEEEEEETEEEEEEEEET'

[designweb]

ok got back on switch with default username and new password, management ip address stayed but NTP and switch name, SNMP and location were blank. switch looking stable now

[sirhc]

Is the method going forward, that I read in these reports that each upgrade will require a power cycle to stabilize new firmware, this will make me think about purchasing anymore or perhaps I just keep to the firmware that had no graphics on the status page as that did appear more stable across my thirty switches

Hello, sorry you had an issues, we try hard to prevent issues but sometimes it happens.

The number of switches that have had an issue that require a power cycle are small. There are over 6,000 switches out there in service and the number of issues requiring a power cycle are less than 10 units so far (that have been reported anyway) which is pretty small percentage.

That does not mean we are not trying to figure out why as even 1 switch requiring a power cycle is too many in my opinion.

However being a WISP for 20 years I have never found a piece of equipment that a once in awhile a power cycle was not needed and this includes Cisco.

We hope with v1.3.7 FINAL we resolved the issue but if not we will continue to improve the product as best we can.

Thank you for your support.

[sirhc]

So we finally released v1.3.7 earlier today.

I feel this is the best firmware we have released to date and I highly recommend updating to this version.

This is not really a bug but rather an un-intended operation.

After upgrading to v1.3.7 make sure to verify that POE Smart is turned OFF on any 24VH port that is powering an airFIBER X radio.

We have been trying to protect people who mistakenly apply 24VH to airMAX radios as they are not designed to receive power on all 4 pair which is what 24VH does and would result in the destruction of the airMAX radio that expects power on only 2 pair and could result in damaging the port in the switch.

This is a blunder on my part as I made an assumption that the airFIBER X was designed similar to the airFIBER 5 and airFIBER 24 radio as far as the Ethernet port (I did not check this so it is my fault).

There is no problem upgrading to v1.3.7 or even rebooting the radio via the UI or CLI but if you were to cycle the power on a switch that is powering an airFIBER X radio on a 24VH port with 24VH POE selected the airFIBER X will fail the POE Smart check and the switch will turn the POE OFF.

So if you have upgraded to v1.3.7 simply login to the switch and turn POE Smart off for any port that you are powering an airFIBER X with 24VH.

If you are powering an airFIBER X with normal 24V this is not an issue.

The reason it fails is cable diagnostics will see SHORT on all 4 pair of the airFIBER X and one of the checks POE Smart does to try and determine if the user has an airMAX radio in that port is look for a short on pairs 3 and 4 which is a signature on Ubiquiti legacy 24V radios such as airMAX.

The airFIBER 24 and airFIBER 5 report all OPEN on the pairs and I made the assumption that would be how the airFIBER X would report... my BAD!!

So all you have to do is after upgrading to v1.3.7 simply log into the switch and disable POE Smart on any 24VH POE port that is powering an airFIBER X.

So I am going to have to go back to the drawing board on how to protect from users from accidentally trying to power a standard 24V radio with 24VH.

The only thing I can think to do is a drop down warning message when people go to select 24VH as a POE option.

[designweb]

We have been a wisp for over sixteen years and agree with what you are saying, however we were getting used to the reliability of your switches, hence we have swapped some thirty our now to Netonix, it gets frustrating when you are used to remotely updating towers remotely and now we may have to either travel there or install sms kit to remotely power cycle if required. 1.3.7 looks good but why did it wipe the basic config I mentioned locking me out, you can see by the log it had correct time before the upgrade, when I managed to get back in no time server settings at all or smtp etc. I do get frustrated but will stick with your products as they are the best we have had. For reference the AF we have on port 1 is one of the first airFIBER 5 which shut down and was our incoming feed and two other ports had 5x and powered up with no problem despite the smart warnings. 1.3.7 has been running 10 hours now and the total log has three lines
Nov 10 23:18:23 switch[1954]: Detected warm boot and two lines of me logging in and out, it is performing well, but we have left airFiber5 on its own POE for now but that does defeat the object of the ability to remotely reboot it, luckily airFIBRE is Ubnt best product to date mainly due to its Motorola heritage and unlike its smaller relatives does not usually require rebooting to clear memory leaks etc. finally are you going to compete with Edgepoint with a waterproof switch for the tower?

[designweb]

is it possible to vary the speed on the new timer that reverts to previous config, perfect idea, very useful, but sometimes need longer to make other changes around it before it comes back up and reverts. thanks again for a great product

[mayheart]

We have been a wisp for over sixteen years and agree with what you are saying, however we were getting used to the reliability of your switches, hence we have swapped some thirty our now to Netonix, it gets frustrating when you are used to remotely updating towers remotely and now we may have to either travel there or install sms kit to remotely power cycle if required. 1.3.7 looks good but why did it wipe the basic config I mentioned locking me out, you can see by the log it had correct time before the upgrade, when I managed to get back in no time server settings at all or smtp etc. I do get frustrated but will stick with your products as they are the best we have had. For reference the AF we have on port 1 is one of the first airFIBER 5 which shut down and was our incoming feed and two other ports had 5x and powered up with no problem despite the smart warnings. 1.3.7 has been running 10 hours now and the total log has three lines
Nov 10 23:18:23 switch[1954]: Detected warm boot and two lines of me logging in and out, it is performing well, but we have left airFiber5 on its own POE for now but that does defeat the object of the ability to remotely reboot it, luckily airFIBRE is Ubnt best product to date mainly due to its Motorola heritage and unlike its smaller relatives does not usually require rebooting to clear memory leaks etc. finally are you going to compete with Edgepoint with a waterproof switch for the tower?

I actully came here to ask the same question. The Edgepoint is a neat idea, but I don't trust Ubiquiti with switch products after the whole TS platform. Would rather much use Netonix.

[Dave]

designweb

1.3.7 looks good but why did it wipe the basic config I mentioned locking me out, you can see by the log it had correct time before the upgrade, when I managed to get back in no time server settings at all or smtp etc

We have never seen this before, and believe me, we do hundreds of upgrades for our testing before releasing. Not saying it didn't happen for you, but not sure why.

Can you please tell me from what version were you upgrading from?

Thanks.

Dave