AR8227 doesn’t seem to be a discrete chip. It’s part of an SOC with the CPU, for all we know it uses PCIe or some other method to talk to the CPU, none of those documents seem to say. You could be right, but it’s hard to determine from the available documentation.
From: Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 7:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP http://i.mt.lv/routerboard/files/Block-RB2011UAS-2HnD.pdf I can't find any details on the AR8227, but if it's a 10/100 switch, then I don't see it having a gigabit uplink. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:26:43 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP 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. >> >
