@BreakTheStatic While I don't have a V5, I have a V3, give a try at rebooting it before trying the update in Omada, similar to the note for v5.0.2.

Hey @JoeSea, forgot to note in my original post that I did try rebooting the switch before attempting the upgrade (not the first time, but after it failed once) - regrettably that didn't solve it. Thanks for the suggestion though!

I guess one thing to note regarding my docker setup is that previous device firmware upgrades were done via an older configuration through traefik on the default management port. However, a month or two ago when @mbentley worked with the tp-link devs to add support for port 443, I switched over to that setup to avoid the somewhat complicated routing rules with the default port. Perhaps the firmware update doesn't play nicely with using alternative ports?  Not sure if that's something anyone else has encountered.

  @BreakTheStatic 

You can try to upgrade the switch via standalone. All configurations in controller mode are saved in the controller. So any changing in switch standalone (including resetting) will not affect the controller settings. You can backup the controller config file anyway.

  @Somnus thanks, I didn't really think of that at the time! Restoring the config after the reset & upgrade would likely be much less painful than I originally thought.  That being said, out of curiosity I reverted my controller (& resulting docker config) back to the default port (8043) instead of 443. Once I did that, the 5.0.3 upgrade went through successfully.

Maybe this problem was introduced when the controller software started allowing the privileged port 443 to be used (previously it had to be a user port (greater than 1024). Complicating matters a bit for me is that I run the omada software through traefik & in docker, so there are definitely a few more layers of complexity there. Either way, for now I'm going to just keep it set to port 8043 and live with the traefik config redirect hacks.

  @BreakTheStatic why are you using 3rd party docker implementation if you can run it directly where support would be valid? For docker package support you probably should ask mbentley. When somebody writes to use a docker and has a problem, I normally stop reading as issues can be anywhere. Mbentley who maintanances docker package was asking about this change, I though it was resolved, however, you as a docker user were not having that info, seems it is not in docker description or you missed to read it if its there.

  @btx, maybe you did stop reading because I already tagged mbentley in my prior comment, asking if it was something he's come across. Also, the second half of your response is almost unintelligble. Are you saying that mbentley explicitly knew about firmware update issues when running in the docker container, or are you just generally referring to his recent request to allow port 443 to be set as the management port?  I've looked through all the latest documentation & message board posts related to the docker container and didn't come across anything specifically mentioning firmware update issues.  Also, I am still running the docker container and was able to update the firmware, albeit using the original port (8043) instead of 443, which leads me to believe it might be related to the non-standard port.  If I can get some spare time, I was planning on running it natively with port 443 to rule out docker as a potential issue, but this isn't in a test env, so it's hard to get time to mess around with the configs.

  @BreakTheStatic seems I should have stop reading, you might tag mbentkey but to me it is unknown that he offers support here, as I said, better I stop reading as it seems you are not aware where mbentkey's sources are, there is even issue tracker and you can post your issue, which is correct place to raise issue abou his docker, once again, it is not tplinks product and there is no support on this forum for docket image.

unintelligble? Seems you have difficulties to understand what I wrote and explanation where you should seek for help is not understanable to you.

I am saying that mbentley maintenances and if there is issue with its package, then mbentley would probably like to know it and after this info gets to him mostly over issues raised where package is published, then he can fix it, ignore it or ask tplink to fix it if he believes the issue is omada's.

I remember he was asking in a thread about port 443 and some issues, I neither use it, nor plan to use, nor I am checking git issues raised by other users.

You can tag him as much as you want, his time will be wasted if he starts running support here instead where it should be done.

If you use mbentley, then be sure to read sources issues and if you have issues, then raise it there which is best and fastest way to fix, thats what I can assure you as a dev, but will not speak in his name, if he finds it usefull to track this forum for issues instead users posting their issues where it belongs = issue tracker , then it is his choice to waste his time.

unintelligble is that you ignored one and only question raised by me, communication is not defined by one way communication, its two.

  @btx, it seems English isn't your native language; perhaps that's the reason for all the confusion. To clarify, originally I posted a simple question asking if anyone else was having problems updating to the latest firmware. This is a very common issue when new firmware is released and, having previously updated device firmware successfully using the docker container, it seemed completely unrelated.

After my initial post, I recalled that I had made some configuration changes since the last time I had performed a firmware update (switched to port 443 for management) and provided more information as to what remedied the issue for me.

Perhaps this is a docker issue and I will bring it up on mbentley's Github, but remember that this is a forum to exchange information, not a TP-Link ticketing system.  I wasn't expecting to receive any official support from the company given the nature of my setup; I was just looking to see, in an informal setting, whether my issue had come up before.

  @BreakTheStatic oh. sure, you start talking about language after it is you who has difficulties to understand and express, your goals are clear, you talk about my english, talk better about your mouth, nose, brain or maybe your mum. At least you got it right that correct place would be github, you did not thank for the info, therefore you actually lie about community/exchange, but ok, you got it at least.

  @btx, I was trying to understand what you meant in your prior message, but it was difficult to discern due to the lack of punctuation, misspellings and rambling nature of your response. If you wanted to be helpful you could have just said, "Docker does introduce a lot of potential issues. You should try reaching out to mbentley on GitHub since you're more likely to get a response from him there."