Why the hell built-in wireless and minipcie card shares the same IRQ???
I just have tried to run ptp (ospf) link on two rb912UAG and encountered BIG problem because card in MiniPCI-e slot ( ar9220 -ubnt SR-71e )
works for about 30 seconds and then gets blind and disconnects !
Afterwards wireless scan shows no available AP, nothing, completely blind!
Even more, disabling one of the cards makes the other better thruput ( not regarding wifi data rate)
I can’t manage to work these two wlans simultanously!
stupid beeper has unique IRQ but WLAN cards share ther same IRQ = 2 !
Can anybody tell me how to get both wlan interfaces working simultanously??
I’m not thinking I cannot use, I faced the real problem on production link.
as I realised using both cards simultanously for ptp (either bonding or ospf ) is
limited due to IRQ sharing!
as far as i know
1 IRQ and 1 CoreCPU cant go with 2 interfaces on one IRQ
without speed degradation, it’s a fact.
And it happens because other wlan is ON and takes IRQ time so with ONE IRQ only ONE interface
can transmit at a time? right?
Isn’t it obvious and well known issue of shared IRQ since beggining of computing??
And problem with sharing IRQ is not new to Mikrotik,
it reminds me problems with some x86 back to ROS 3.30 times.
WLAN cards stops responding,can’t see a … goes blind/deaf.
I tried 3 minipci-e vendors ,rb912 5ghz and 2ghz version, all assigns IRQ2 to both interfaces.
I realise that when one card is meant to be AP the other as receive signal from AP,
You can’t transfer data to both wlan at a time. so speed degradation is imminent.
Please fix the irq assignment so board would be functional as advertised, as for me now
it has critical problem that forced me to go back to x86 to do the job.
I see the same IRQ use as well when ever I put a mini pci-e modules on RB912UAG, but unfortunately any of my cards are supported by the ROS at all. What mini pci-e cards are supposed to work with the ROS?
Is the IRQ sharing your only issue, or are there any actual problems with your wireless? IRQ sharing on this device is normal, and is expected. This will not affect your performance or any operation of the cards.
If the card is not supported, it is not showing up in RouterOS. If it is showing in interfaces, it is supported. We support all kinds of Quallcom/Atheros chipset based cards.
I have my R11e-5HnD AR9580 1000mW on pre-order. I like supported configurations because I used to work in QA and you can never test every configuration with every piece of hardware.
I’m hoping that I can use the R11e-5HnD as the PtP backhaul running in a RB/912UAG-2HPnD which will be used as a 802.11bgn Wifi AP. I have had good luck running RB435G with two mini-pci cards in that configuration. The 912UAG series will be so much more compact. I have over a hundred RB411AH clipped onto UBNT antennas with Maxxwave’s UBTik enclosures.
Also … the METAL gigabit ethernet port and the 8-30VDC voltage range on the RB912UAG series routerboard makes it perfect for 12 and 24 volt solar powered installs. Gonna be awesome!
If anyone knows of a public safety 4.9GHz FY90 certified AR9580 chipped mini-pci-e card please let me know. Thanks
Normis You say no speed degradation due to irq sharing?
I did some desk tests and those clearly says that total thruput of RB912 is limited by the cpu/irq issue.
at the beggining of this test done over two 912 connected both wlans simultanously but transmitting
both directions, so using both wlan interfaces. then just one direction. And it proves speed degradation
because wlan were ready to go as high as 225mbps but cpu of 912 was maxed out.
when I started btest within connected 912’s speed over wlan1-rx dropped from 225mbps to sad 115mbps
and You clearly see CPU is occupied with IRQ - 92% of CPU usage.
It goes Even worse is when set in real environment. I gave up with 50-60mbps = 100% cpu usage with configuration as follows:
RB CCR1016 < —gig eth —> RB912 (ospf to sim fullduplex) =======12km of perfect los/fresnel link======= RB912 or RB493G
test from CCR to RB493G was around 50 mbps one direction -send- with some addition of real traffic in background ( 10/2mbps )
Simple exchange 912 to x86 (d945g-sejt) and speed goes up to real wireless thruput 170-200mbps on a wifi link rated at 270/270
So if you say 912 is intended to have IRQ sharing feature, I can only say 912 is useless for me, and hope for minipci-e 802.11ac wlan card in RB912G
and gigabit thruput is kind of forget about it idea.
Do You really want to convince me that irq sharing has some advantages? if so, please count one.
NOTE: There was a mistake in the initial published technical documentation for R11e-5HnD devices. Actual maximum TX power for those is 27dBm not 30dBm.
