Multi-Hub Network "Labs" Feature

I just recently added an additional hub to my house to try to relieve some of the memory burden on my current hub. Upon installing the new hub, I saw the option for “Multi-Hub Network” and had a “Labs” logo next to it. I was able to set it up. But now I’m little curious…what exactly is going on here? I couldn’t find any articles outlining what is going on in this setup, but am curious what is going on in the background when setup like this.

It’s to allow multiple hubs to share one thread network or one Zigbee network or one Matter fabric. They will work the way the SmartThings Wi-Fi mesh networks worked in that there will be a primary hub, and then the others become just repeater devices on the primary hub’s network.

Note, if you are using this, then you can’t use the The Hub replace feature to let you move from one hub to another, which is a little weird because they promote them on the same page. I don’t think this was intentional design, I think it’s something they discovered after both features were released.

Initially multi hub was only for thread on the station models, but it has since expanded.

It’s probably most important for matter over thread, but it will also keep matter over Wi-Fi devices from being added twice to your SmartThings account if you have more than one controller model.

Some official announcements

.

The app instructions for replace:

2 Likes

90% of my devices are z-wave. Any advantage with these?

I will say this: I was running into memory issues with my hub before. I had planned on just making a separate network and split my zwave devices between the 2 hubs to lessen the load…with this second hub added as a “daughter” hub, I haven’t gotten any low memory issues and also my network seems to be running smoother.

Wonder if there is any merit to this or if it is a Placebo effect.

1 Like

Not at this time, and given samsung’s lack of interest in zwave for the future, I’d be surprised if they add it, but maybe. :thinking:

2 Likes

Just adding a second hub to your location and dividing up the devices should be enough to do that. It wouldn’t need the multihub feature for those benefits.

correct…but I currently have it set up as a multi hub network, and seems to have made performance improvements. Because my network is mostly all z-wave just trying to figure out if it is placebo or actually does memory sharing or some other advanced network load sharing that would be noticable from my end.

Not for zwave.

Set it up again without the multihub enabled and you should get exactly the same performance results for those devices.

Ok…Placebo effect it is.

Thanks!

I’ll be removing those and setting them up as their own network and start splitting devices…annoying.

If what you have now is working, there’s no reason to change it again. :thinking:

1 Like

You do make a good point…if it aint broke…don’t fix it.

And who knows…maybe there is some weird indirect effect that this is helping me with my zwave network.

I’ll leave it as is. If I’ll post an update in a few weeks to see how still going.

4 Likes

The “test” of whether multi-hub provides real value or not, is if Routines involving devices on both hubs run locally or not. If not, then it’s"no" IMO.

1 Like

I think it does provide valuable features for the matter fabric integration. As SmartThings staff have mentioned elsewhere, for one thing it will prevent a matter over Wi-Fi device from being added to your SmartThings account twice. It should also improve thread QOS.

Of course, if you don’t have any matter devices that won’t be relevant.

I guess I should have been more precise and said the “test” for Z-Wave multi-hub. Yes, as you point out, it will have real value for Matter and Thread for sure.

2 Likes

It seems to me that multi-hub is really about changing a system of n hubs from one where 1 hub is doing all the work and n-1 are noisily contributing absolutely nothing, and turning it into one where 1 hub is still doing all the work and n-1 are silently making the environment it is working in a little more robust and efficient. As long as that one hub can cope I think that has some value.

On the other hand, if one hub can’t cope it isn’t going to gain you much, if anything.

Perhaps it is really about making a network of “hubs” that run on otherwise memory or processor limited devices (read: Samsung appliances/TVs, i.e., marketing buzz to generate “$$$” of sales), sharing the resources so performance is at least “adequate” for the average consumer. As has been pointed out before, that user is less likely to be found here on this forum! :yum:

2 Likes

This theory could explain how my single hub zwave setup was working fine but struggling with overload at times, but after adding a second hub the network seems healthier.

I think it’s simpler than that.

If you have a pickup truck rated for carrying 2,000 pounds and you load it with 1800 pounds, it may run a little rough. :pickup_truck:

Get a second identical pickup and split the load so that each is carrying 900 pounds, and both will run smoother. There’s no mystery. And it doesn’t have to have anything to do with the multihub feature or the two trucks communicating with each other. :pickup_truck::pickup_truck:

1 Like