I have 9 devices around the house, couple of play 5's in a stereo pair, couple of play 1s in a stereo pair, and a few playbars, 1s and 3s dotted about.
I have 1 Play 1 connected via ethernet to the network, and using this as the 'Boost'
when i look at the webUI on the sonos http://ipaddress:1400/support/review, the matrix shows that some of the further away devices are trying to directly connect to the device thats directly connected via ethernet, instead of another device that is much much closer (ie the other side of the wall!)
As such, the device thats furthest away drops out of the system now and again and its frustrating why it won't connect to a closer device instead.
Is there a way to force which devices connect to which?
Question
SonosNET - not connecting to closest device?
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
You can't really force the topology. Sonos will try and minimise the 'root path cost' of each node, which in practice means minimising the number of wireless hops back to the wired device. If a direct connection to the wired node appears to be viable it will be used.
Interference could be compromising the stability of the wireless topology. Submit a system diagnostic within 15 mins of a dropout, and post the confirmation number.
Interference could be compromising the stability of the wireless topology. Submit a system diagnostic within 15 mins of a dropout, and post the confirmation number.
ok thanks,
I have the potential to hard wire the far away node, but that then means 2 ethernet connected devices, and i read about issues with spanning tree and managed switches.
Done mind buying a dedicated 'boost' - i think i read somewhere that the wireless capability of the boost is better than the wireless in the Gen 1 devices (of which my Play 1 connected to the ethernet is)
is the dedicated boost signal better/more efficient than having a node connected to the network?
I have the potential to hard wire the far away node, but that then means 2 ethernet connected devices, and i read about issues with spanning tree and managed switches.
Done mind buying a dedicated 'boost' - i think i read somewhere that the wireless capability of the boost is better than the wireless in the Gen 1 devices (of which my Play 1 connected to the ethernet is)
is the dedicated boost signal better/more efficient than having a node connected to the network?
A BOOST in place of your wired PLAY:1 just might improve the signal to the most distant node, but there are no guarantees.
To start with I suggest you wire the distant node and see what happens. Any STP problems will quickly manifest themselves in a broadcast storm that takes down the network. Here is info about STP, including the possible need to explicitly configure any managed switches.
To start with I suggest you wire the distant node and see what happens. Any STP problems will quickly manifest themselves in a broadcast storm that takes down the network. Here is info about STP, including the possible need to explicitly configure any managed switches.
Ok, so I've removed the ethernet from what was the current connected device, and plugged ethernet into the one that kept dropping off.
Interestingly, this one has now formed a connection to a central device in the kitchen (one of a stereo pair) and from there, this central device is making the connection to all the others.
Will see how it runs like that for a while so just the one ethernet connected device still
Assume no issues with the root bridge only connecting to one device, and then this one device, which has made itself a secondary node, is feeding all the others?
Interestingly, this one has now formed a connection to a central device in the kitchen (one of a stereo pair) and from there, this central device is making the connection to all the others.
Will see how it runs like that for a while so just the one ethernet connected device still
Assume no issues with the root bridge only connecting to one device, and then this one device, which has made itself a secondary node, is feeding all the others?
That's the way SonosNet is intended to work. It's a mesh.
The only issue one occasionally encounters is that from time to time devices may flip between 'secondary' (connecting directly to the root) and 'tertiary'. Sonos will try and make a direct, single-hop connection if it can, down to some quite low signal strengths. Only when the direct connection is simply too weak will it use multiple wireless hops.
Had a few more issues today, so went back to how it was setup before, original Play:1 forming the boost, and all the other devices hanging off that.
I then connected ethernet to the player that kept dropping out, but that caused some issues in itself, so disabled WiFI on the Playbar that kept dropping out, and all seems good.
So at the moment, i have a play:1 as the boost, and all devices connected to that in the mesh, and then a player connected via ethernet only, with wifi disabled so as not to cause a loop, and seems ok.
See how long that lasts!
I then connected ethernet to the player that kept dropping out, but that caused some issues in itself, so disabled WiFI on the Playbar that kept dropping out, and all seems good.
So at the moment, i have a play:1 as the boost, and all devices connected to that in the mesh, and then a player connected via ethernet only, with wifi disabled so as not to cause a loop, and seems ok.
See how long that lasts!
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.