Unifi Controller Redundancy

Submitted by -

There should be away to provide controller redundancy - currently if the controller goes off line (hardware crash, or service shuts down), the access points go into autonomous mode.  This means guest networks end up either being locked out, or if access is  granted there are no limitations (other than restricted networks, etc).  

Please consider implementing the ability to have redundant controllers - a primary and secondary source. So that if the primary is offline, the AP contacts the secondary.  Synchronization of the primary and secondary controller should be easy enough to arrange. 






on ‎01-31-2014 02:10 PM

That would be very handy. +1

on ‎02-11-2014 02:11 AM

It's will be good for thick installations.

‎02-26-2014 12:56 PM - edited ‎02-26-2014 02:38 PM

Yes, agreeing this would be an excellent feature.  Although I'm curious how autonomous mode is supposed to operate when using an external portal server.

A deployment of mine, for example, had its UniFi controller crash when an unscheduled reboot prevented MongoDB from restarting.  However, The PHP-based captive portal (i.e. Apache and MySQL) were able to restart cleanly.  Do I understand current UniFi firmware on the APs will lock out the guest network if the controller goes down, even if the portal server remains up?

on ‎03-07-2014 02:30 AM

This would be so helpfull when we using Vouchers/Hotspot

on ‎03-07-2014 04:06 AM

just an idea: for the time being, you could also achieve this with virtualising the controller and then use a "high availability" feature several virtualisation-vendors offer. As the controller uses relatively little resources, this should be doable.

on ‎03-15-2014 06:27 PM


active standby or active active redundancy is a must for a large carrier class deployment.

on ‎03-27-2014 08:36 PM

A large carrier class deployment would use some sort of clustered machines to install the software controller on, either physical, or virtual. Controller redundancy doesn't make sense, simply use a solid server harware, with a UPs, good switches, and you're good to go, your controller would never be offline. But if you're still worried, you can buy 2 servers, make a virtualization cluster using Microsoft Hyper-V server 2012R2, wich is free, and install the controller on a virtual machine, what's a better redundancy than that?

on ‎03-27-2014 08:38 PM

Controller diversity DOES make complete sense, and in very large deployments with 10Gb+ requirements, is needed.

on ‎04-17-2014 10:59 AM

I dunno about this, Rudency can be establish. we have vmware with cluster setup if one server goes down virtual server is still active i guess it is good for users with less productive enviroment. 

on ‎04-17-2014 11:06 AM

Several folks have suggested using virtualization for redundancy - I do not believe this is an adequate solution. In a virtualized or cluster environment the key would be to ensure that the actual database state of active clients is cleanly maintained - token / voucher access, statistics, etc.  Unless the databases are synched, a virtualization or cluster enviroment isn't going to help.

The straight-forward solution is to have an active / standby server configuration with the active server updating the standby server databases at a frequent interval and a heartbeat or keepalive connection betweent the two hosts.  The servers could be virtual machines (presumably on separate physical hosts), but two logically separate servers are required for full redundancy.  

In an enterprise class environment, this is going to be a critical feature set, particularly in enterprises with diverse geographical locations.