CRS might not have existed whenever they bought their 2011, but yeah CRS
is a much better switch than a 2011 is.
On 3/11/2016 4:26 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
I don't see anything in that saying the bandwidth from the 10/100
Ethernet switch chip to the CPU is limited to 100M, maybe I missed
something.
It does appear to be true the only connection between the 2 switch
chips is bridging via the CPU.
If using it primarily as a switch not a router, a CRS might be better?
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Falaschi
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
That is what I took from this post:
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=63372
We had tons of issues at a site. Nothing made sense, CPU usage was in
the teens, but we just saw terrible performance and packet loss at
peak. Eventually we found out that we received more complaints on
different APs and found the above post. We were only using the tik as
a switch at the top of the tower to terminate the fiber up the tower
and connect the APs. We replaced with a Netonix and all of our issues
at this site went away. I had no idea. A warning label would have
saved us months of issues trying to track it down.
Joe
On Mar 11, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Well that's news to me! Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker
on that.
On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things
are plugged into. Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to
ports 1-5. If the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M,
you'll have issues there too.
