I have a few CRS125 as customer demarc routers, they seem equivalent to a
2011 with all gig ports. All those ports do consume some CPU cycles, even
with no traffic I see over 10% CPU utilization. This might go down if I
turned off unused ports.
Too bad that passive cooling version of the CCR1009 consumes so much power,
it's also quite a bit more expensive than a 493G or 2011.
Mikrotik, why can't you add another switch chip to the 850Gx2 and have a
replacement for the 493G. I suppose their answer is the 3011, but I assume
there will be a learning curve for the new CPU, not sure I want to be on the
bleeding edge of that.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Skorup
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AFMUG] [OT] MT CRS125/RB2011 vs 493G
If I believe the throughput test results at routerboard.com, the CRS125
and 2011 (same CPU) should be very similar if not slightly better than
the 493G. Like Mike Hammett mentioned (almost as much as SFPs :), the
issue going foward with the 493s is the L2 MTU limitation. I hate the
split 10/100 and gigabit on the 2011 and we're always adding more radios
at medium sized sites so the more ports (and all gigabit) that the CRS
offers is attractive. I'm kinda thinking of just going to the CRS as a
replacement for the 493G instead of adding a managed switch. I've put a
little over 200Mbps through the 493G's (with a handful of queues and
firewall rules, nothing major) and they still had a bit of room left,
but I'm just not sure if the CRS can handle that. It looks like it
will.. on paper. The most I've ever been able to get out of a 493G is
about 70k PPS and 245Mbps of real live traffic. I'm also slightly
worried about MT shit-canning the 493 series too. Hell, if I could fit
an 1100AHx2 at all of the sites, I'd just use those, but they have fans
that like to stop working. Just had another one last night, had to
power-cycle it to get the fans going again.
Has anyone else done this already? Does the CRS125 suck as a router,
compared to the 493G anyway?
