Zwave performance: better to use bridge mode or build out mesh network?

Vera Controllers, Services & Devices Vera Controllers & Cameras
#1

I’ve recently upgraded to a vera plus from a vera lite and also added some extra zwave devices in the fringe areas of our house. The new devices are pretty far, so the performance is slow or inconsistent.

To address this, i’m thinking of either:

  1. installing more zwave devices in between to act as repeaters or
  2. use the old vera lite in bridge mode.

Can anyone add any pros/cons to either method? Is there a best practice recommendation?

Thanks!

#2

Remember that the Vera Plus supports Z-Wave Plus devices. The Vera Lite does not. You probably will have better luck using Z-Wave Plus repeater devices to build out your mesh. You also want to make sure that you don’t create an “hourglass” by having a single repeater that is the choke point for your devices that are on the fringe.

#3

Unquestionably, #1 is your best option, if you can achieve it. A dense mesh is a happy mesh.

#2, on the other hand, is at the mercy of (sorry to say) a rather poor and unreliable MiOS implementation, which becomes a nightmare to troubleshoot and maintain.

It was because of the bridging problem that I began development of the openLuup system, which can bridge multiple Vera’s seamlessly with no restriction on firmware versions. So this is really option #3 if you’re prepared to have a separate small machine (eg. RPi) running openLuup. I run like this with two old VeraLites running UI5, and one Vera Edge with UI7. All the HA logic, scenes and the like, runs on openLuup, with all the bridged Vera devices visible there.

#4

I would have to agree with @HSD99. It’s better to use z-wvae plus devices giving you a more reliable mesh network with better range. Just my experience.

#5

Great to know. That confirms my assumptions. Thanks for all the replies guys!

I’m only using the veras for zwave network. In my case, all my rules processing is handled on openHAB.

Either way, I’ll go in the direction of #1.