I am not sure how I know this, either someone shared this with me or it was somewhere in the forums....
On the CCR's each port has a dedicated core assigned to it.... Which is a good thing (cause your router will not come does in case of DDOS) and or Bad thing, if you are careless with your configuration e.g. use a bridge config etc. Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glen Waldrop" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 2:57:50 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CCR1036-8G-2S+EM > PCQ is suppose to use a core per connection, so in theory it should have > perfectly spread the load across all 36 cores. Instead most cores were > fairly low, one core was constantly pegged. > I did forget to mention that 6.7 had a severe port flapping issue, but that > was also when connected to my RB600 that had been hit by lightning 3 times. > 6.12 on an RB2011 works perfect connected to the same RB600. We have the CCR > in the cable plant now, mostly used as a dummy switch, light routing. It > will soon handle a heavier load, DNS and ToD. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Adam Moffett > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:08 PM > > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CCR1036-8G-2S+EM > > > Interesting.� I knew BGP was single threaded.� Apparently > > multi-threading > > BGP was too complex (or something) and they decided to optimize their > > algorithms instead.� I wasn't aware that anything else was limited to a > > single thread.� I sure hope that isn't still a thing. > > > > We've got one, might have a different amount of RAM, don't remember. > > > > > > Worked okay, but my QoS rules hit one of 36 CPUs pretty hard, the others > > > were > > > idling. > > > > > > � > > > > > > The cable engineer had to have a CCR because it was faster than the Core > > > i7 > > > router I built for them. Turns out the ponytailed computer guy *might* > > > actually know what he's talking about. > > > > > > � > > > > > > As far as routing, switching, etc, they seem to do fine. With the QoS > > > setup > > > I > > > have routing 250Mbps at the time, the CCR couldn't spread the load over > > > multiple cores. When I disabled my QoS rules the CCR routed just fine at > > > an > > > idle. A big part of the reason we went with MT for the edge was the QoS > > > control, so the CCR has now been assigned another job. > > > > > > I think this was around 6.12 or so. Might work better now. A lot of other > > > things work better as of around 6.20. > > > > > > � > > > > > > � > > > > > > � > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Stewart > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:18 AM > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [AFMUG] CCR1036-8G-2S+EM > > > > > > > > > > Anyone used one of these � any feedback? > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > I�m getting involved with a wireless expansion project probably at > > > > some > > > > point and these Routerboard CCR1036-8G-2S+EM were specified in the > > > > project > > > > plans. > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > Roughly speaking, 600-800Mb/s of traffic going through them � roughly > > > > 2500 > > > > PPPOE users terminating on it (BRAS).� This is just an estimate at > > > > this > > > > point�. > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > Whether I like it or not, it looks like I�m swimming into Routerboard > > > > and > > > > Ubiquiti territory �. K > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > >
