Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
Hi Paolo, It was pretty bad in early releases of 6, so I've stayed far from it. I've recently found a serious issue with 5.26 where the default route from BGP occasionally fails to be redistributed into OSPF, obviously causing issues for the rest of the network. Especially when it happens on all of our edge routers at the same time. The solution from Mikrotik Support was to use 6.2 or greater. I've been testing 6.7 on a RB450G and so far it's been working without issues. I haven't tested BGP yet. Do you (or anyone) have any recommendations for/against using 6.7 on a MIPSBE RouterBoard (not Power PC) for BGP with a default route, and running OSPF? Nothing fancy, no filtering, etc. Any known stability issues with this basic configuration on 6.7? Thanks. Brett Woollum Senior Sales Engineer br...@tekify.com Tekify Broadband Internet Services Web: http://www.tekify.com Phone: 510-266-5800 , ext 6200 - Original Message - From: "Paolo Di Francesco" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 8:49:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core I agree with you, Faisal The main problem with the CCR (see the forum) is that 6.x is still buggy and not everything runs in multicore/SMP So not sure if the CCR is TODAY the best choice for some tasks. I have tested also 6.x on some RB1200 and RB1100 and after sometime it shows some strange behaviour. The winbox looses some menus, some features are no more there (e.g. interfaces) etc I do not like to reboot my edge router I hope they will fix soon all the issues with the 6.x and CCR but today I am not sure it could go in production in my network, still waiting to see better maturity Just my 2 Euro Cents ;) > Personal Opinion > > I believe the CCR is a greatly suited as a Tower Router or (Customer > network facing Router, bridge, traffic shaping, filter rules etc) > > However I believe at the present x86 (i3/i5/i7) based MT are more suited > for Internet Facing Edge routers (doing Multiple Full BGP Tables etc, > very little to no filter rules...) > > Depending on Traffic load and (smaller) network design , it is quiet > possible to use either one as a 'all in one' but in the long run it > would be better to break out into two separate boxes. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, FL 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
I agree with you, Faisal The main problem with the CCR (see the forum) is that 6.x is still buggy and not everything runs in multicore/SMP So not sure if the CCR is TODAY the best choice for some tasks. I have tested also 6.x on some RB1200 and RB1100 and after sometime it shows some strange behaviour. The winbox looses some menus, some features are no more there (e.g. interfaces) etc I do not like to reboot my edge router I hope they will fix soon all the issues with the 6.x and CCR but today I am not sure it could go in production in my network, still waiting to see better maturity Just my 2 Euro Cents ;) > Personal Opinion > > I believe the CCR is a greatly suited as a Tower Router or (Customer > network facing Router, bridge, traffic shaping, filter rules etc) > > However I believe at the present x86 (i3/i5/i7) based MT are more suited > for Internet Facing Edge routers (doing Multiple Full BGP Tables etc, > very little to no filter rules...) > > Depending on Traffic load and (smaller) network design , it is quiet > possible to use either one as a 'all in one' but in the long run it > would be better to break out into two separate boxes. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, FL 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
Personal Opinion I believe the CCR is a greatly suited as a Tower Router or (Customer network facing Router, bridge, traffic shaping, filter rules etc) However I believe at the present x86 (i3/i5/i7) based MT are more suited for Internet Facing Edge routers (doing Multiple Full BGP Tables etc, very little to no filter rules...) Depending on Traffic load and (smaller) network design , it is quiet possible to use either one as a 'all in one' but in the long run it would be better to break out into two separate boxes. 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: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Tom DeReggi" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 8:20:19 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core > Sam, > Thats quite impressive, to be able to support that many queues and filter > rules. So apparently, those key services must be multi processor. > That is good to learn. > Eric, > Regarding single core apps. It may not matter all that much if an app is > single core, if it can use a unique core. > My concern is if key single core apps default to sharing the same core. > Faisal, > A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and Full > throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for > full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With X86 > processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs > arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to > handle the load of other processes. > Paul, > Since we are on a budget, and need something to put in place quickly w/ SPFs, > sounds like the 36core CCRs will solve our immediate need for Core BGP > Router. It clearly will do way much better than the 1100 dual core that we > temporarilly put in place, until we had time to order in a CCR. > Whether the CCR will handle our growth plans for head end, thats yet to be > seen. > In our application we wont have nearly the number of rules per router as > Sam's example, as we do filtering and bandwidth management at each tower, to > spread out the load. > Last Question: > Long term, what Im most concerned about is how much throughput can be passed > per gig port. Meaning how close to theoretical wirespeed. Because > when calculating a providers cost per MB, its a big difference whether a > router port can push the full GB versus say 50%. > It can double a provider's cost per MB, requiring duplicating ones fiber > infrastructure prematurely. > Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still achieve > theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a single port? > 1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size? > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > - Original Message - > > > From: Sam Tetherow > > > To: WISPA General List > > > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 5:28 PM > > > Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core > > > Replaced an aging powerrouter 732 with a CCR-1036. Set up as a transparent > > bridge for traffic shaping. Passing 478M peak with 8200 interface bridge > > filter rules and 8000 queue tree entries, cpu utilization peaks at about 50 > > and all 36 CPUs are in use according to /system resource cpu print > > > The 732 started giving us CPU limitations at about 240Mbps. The whole thing > > could be reworked so we didn't have so many filter rules or queue tree > > entries, but the original installation replaced a MAC based bandwidth > > limiter and they wanted to keep that setup. > > > Other than some lockup issues we had on ROS versions before 6.7 we have > > been > > pretty happy with the box and for under $1k it is hard to beat. > > > On 01/24/2014 03:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > > > > Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a > > > redundant topic or not. > > > > > > Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, > > > using > > > as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections > > > (w/ > > > BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? > > > > > > To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say > > > a > > > third party Quad core 3Ghz model. > > > > > > What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even > > > used > > > by > > > software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing > > > > > > - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? > > > > > > - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross > > > to > > > a unique processor or use multiple processors? > > > > > > Is 1.2Ghz enough? > > > > > > Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In > > > past, > > > we > > > learned depending on which NIC and dri
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
Yep, you said it Rubens. 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: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Rubens Kuhl" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 4:20:27 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core > > Faisal, > > > A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and > > Full > > throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for > > full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With > > X86 > > processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs > > arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to > > handle the load of other processes. > > It seems there is a dual-core processor per port, so if that ports gets hit > by a DDoS, it will go down without help of any of other ports cores... > Rubens > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
> > > Faisal, > A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and > Full throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough > for full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. > With X86 processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, > the CCRs arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 > procs to handle the load of other processes. > It seems there is a dual-core processor per port, so if that ports gets hit by a DDoS, it will go down without help of any of other ports cores... Rubens ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
