so can we talk about that first app on the list now?
Hub Mesh-
So is this making the existing "hub binding" solutions redundant? And does this open the door for configuring two hubs the same , apps, devices, etc as hot spare/failover for each other?
Failover would be a very nice feature
No*
(* In certain configurations, yes, but not all uses of the other solutions)
No, just device sharing between hubs.
2 Likes
To the degree that I could see hubs sold in a "redundancy set" for this very purpose. We all know sh_t happens, why not make it a sales strategy. Not an admission of weakness, but rather prudence...that the competitive offerings don't make as easy! Falls right in line with the "not relying on the Cloud" mindset.
3 Likes
Good idea, but extremely difficult (if possible at all) to do with zigbee and zwave due to how the networks and security work.
The fact literally no one has done it yet reinforces that ... Might be doable, but not easily, and clearly not worth the return on investment.
1 Like
So that "device sharing" really is a data sharing agreement relying on the device's registered hub to maintain the device's communication relationship and that primary hub to push the data to the secondary hub?
Yes
1 Like
Devices can only join one network controller at a time. Kind of like how your phone can only join one wifi network at a time.
Yeah I think this is probably a limitation of zigbee/zwave. After all while it is true your phone can only join one wifi network at a time, it will switch to a second one fairly quickly if the first goes away 
Was thinking that failover would have the Hub Protection Service and Mesh as prerequisites...
I think you are overly optimistic on how quick or easy the Protection Service new hardware restore process will be.
But we'll see, I guess.
1 Like
A failover capability is not going to happen, for numerous reasons.
1 Like
one of the interesting points to me was the actiontiles app shown at the top of the built in apps list that they "refused" to comment on?
play video and pause all the time as they scroll down the list to read all the changes.. that is what i did.
I love the idea of the Hub Mesh. Is there a way for the hubs to automatically share the load so that I don't have to manually assign devices to separate hubs? I can see myself buying two more for better coverage and...hopefully faster execution.
No, that's not how it works. A device can only pair with a single hub. And each hub's radios are a separate network. So no device load sharing. Although you could use each hub as a separate network if you so desired / needed to.
Obviously each hub does have its own processing power, though, so you could split APPS up between hubs.
3 Likes
Thought it would be pushing the envelope a little 
but it never hurts to ask or plant a seed.
Shellys can have a second backup wifinet....
Exactly....
It's what gets the creative juices going in the back of your head and often results in something that isn't exactly what you initially thought of...but which ends up circumventing the limitations to achieve an end result that addresses a good chunk of the problem/need/use case.
I'm sitting here thinking...of course these devices can't be slave to two hub radios...but maybe in future protocols they could be AWARE of a second and have be chatty enough with their neighboring devices to decide when they all " lost Mamma " and should agree to opt for their surrogate 
.
In the mean time how to construct a complete list of devices in a "cold list" in a "cold hub" that can be joined in short order if you lost your "hot hub". Yeah, I know you all are shaking your heads no way. We can't even coax devices to quickly join with help! Let's just let it be one "seed" concept to get the brainstorming going towards a better solution to meet the objective of rapid recovery.
