First of all, your products are of superior quality. The physical aspects, the range, the network stability.
The case for a LAN dongle is that it enables the separation of the radio from the computer running deconz/z2m/zha, which in turn gives the flexibility to place the server where there is poor wireless reach - such as a basement, garage, or technical closet, and to place the radio at an optimal, central location for signal range.
Another benefit is that a network dongle (serial over ip) is relatively easy to use from a container. A site with more than one building is best served by separate zigbee networks. The cost-effective solution is to run the servers in containers on one physical computer and the dongles remote from the computer. Only network-dongles enable this. This might be a niche problem but anyway.
The case for PoE is obvious. It gives more flexibility of placement and looks much better (no extra outlet and power supply required).
In general, you should ask us and home-automation communities what products we would pay for. There are several unserved needs/markets waiting for you or anyone.
Hello, I have a nooby question, what is the difference beetween installing a small gateway (a raspberry for exemple) with a dongle used as autonomous IP gateway and an autonomous LAN dongle that work with serial over IP ?
The consumption ?
The gestion ? If I m right HA is able to control 2 / 3 deconz network in same time.
The autonomous feature ?
The maintenance ? more machines to keep in date ? But if they are connected to internet too …
The case for a LAN dongle is that it enables the separation of the radio from the computer running deconz/z2m/zha, which in turn gives the flexibility to place the server where there is poor wireless reach - such as a basement, garage, or technical closet, and to place the radio at an optimal, central location for signal range
Not a problem, you can put a deconz gateway where you want.
Another benefit is that a network dongle (serial over ip) is relatively easy to use from a container. A site with more than one building is best served by separate zigbee networks. The cost-effective solution is to run the servers in containers on one physical computer and the dongles remote from the computer. Only network-dongles enable this. This might be a niche problem but anyway
This concern my question, I don’t see the problem using HA on your container, and 5/6 autonomous deconz gateway. I m agree, serial over IP can be easy to use, but a IP to IP too.
Just for information, a zigbee network can have only 1 coordinator, so if you have 1 LAN dongle as coordinator, you can’t have a second one. So if you realy have 2 zones that can’t be meshed because there is too much distance, better to use 2 gateway. And 2 gateway mean 2 deconz network, so you haven’t less software running.
If the goal is to put a coordonator or just a repetear far away from the server to cover optimaly a zone that is already cabled with LAN, an USB extender over RJ45 (with or without PoE) could do the job ?
The wider perspective of multiple buildings with different zigbee networks managed centraly with a single server with containers seems (on the paper) a interesting architecture … But, as @Smanar told, it’s still several zigbee networks to manage.
what is the difference between a gateway and a network dongle
Presumably smaller cost, smaller running cost, smaller and neater device (easier to hide and less wires). The difference is small, but small things add up and better is better Also SBC’s take a really long time to boot, during which my SONOFF devices disconnect and must be re-paired. A serial-over-ip coordinator would presumably run a MCU, which typically boots in milliseconds. A gateway on a container would also reboot in 2 seconds.
I don’t see the problem using HA on your container, and 5/6 autonomous deconz gateway
Well, the point wasn’t that it’s a problem. But 1 computer (with several containers) is less (and cheaper) and more better than 5/6.
Although there are ways to do several networks today, a better solution is better. Progress. I’m expressing my wish for better stuff.
I run systemd-nspawn containers, but haven’t succeeded in attaching a usb or serial device to it. At least not a conbee. Neither usb-over-ip or host machines’ usb. Else I would have been satisfied. But thanks for the idea!
I run a zigbee2mqtt instance and it connects to a slzb-05 (zigbee serial over LAN) device seamlessly. It is such a smooth solution. Dresden Elektronik devices are just much better - so I wish they made one.
So for running cost.
I have tried to see on z2m supported device some Ethernet gateway Supported Adapters | Zigbee2MQTT but all link are dead so I can’t compare.
But for information a raspberry 0 consomme less than 1 W (so 2 Euros by years), you have plug with more consumption.
For cost, it’s something you buy one time and cheaper at base, on my side 20 more euros is not too much if there is more feature, I have some zigbee device than cost more than 2/3 time the conbee price.
Even the conbee can’t start in milliseconds. They need some seconds and a lot of more for the network was ready.
neater device (easier to hide and less wires)
Can buy or make a box.
But 1 computer (with several containers) is less (and cheaper) and more better than 5/6
What is your computer ? some NUC can cost more than 300 euros, more than 5 Rasperry 0 (but right you need too power supply and ATM raspberry cost so much), have more consumption and you can avoid to use container, so just for that it’s a realy good reason ^^.
I have forwarded the post internally to the relevant departments. Since I’m not really involved in the development process of upcoming products, I can’t give any feedback here, though. Perhaps an answer will come from development.
Also SBC’s take a really long time to boot, during which my SONOFF devices disconnect and must be re-paired. A serial-over-ip coordinator would presumably run a MCU, which typically boots in milliseconds. A gateway on a container would also reboot in 2 seconds.