Basically, I have my CRS as a "Normal home gateway", a 100/100 internet connection to interface 1, a basic NAT-setup, and a few inbound NAT. But, performance is pretty dissapointing to say the least

My ISP has a special testing program which you are supposed to run, and it gives the following results, and given my simple setup, something must be a bit strange here?

I have enclosed a config dump.

Via CRS.
----------------------------
TCP downstream : 55.37 Mbit/s

TCP upstream: 92.21 Mbit/s

UDP downstream : 92.85 Mbit/s

UDP upstream : 31.10 Mbit/s
----------------------------



If I connect a computer directly to the fiber port, I get
----------------------------
TCP downstream : 115.07 Mbit/s

TCP upstream: 96.61 Mbit/s

UDP downstream : 125.45 Mbit/s

UDP upstream : 98.04 Mbit/s

----------------------------



If I connectmy old router (Netgear WNDR3800) I get
----------------------------
TCP downstream : 98.07 Mbit/s

TCP upstream: 91.17 Mbit/s

UDP downstream : 117.25 Mbit/s

UDP upstream : 99.34 Mbit/s

Maybe it is called CRS - Cloud Router Switch - and it is put int the "Switches" category by MT for the reason that is is primary a high performance L3 switch with a small router attached, mainly as a management/control unit.
For a full fledged router there are other products in the router category, ranging from RB-750 to the CCR series, depending on your needs.
In your case, a 450G plus a "dumb" low cost gigabit switch would probably do a better job.
(I draw the same conclusion after buying the same CRS125-24G-1S-RM to replace the mentioned combination. But the CRS still looks better in my rack and gives away less heat).

In your case, a 450G plus a "dumb" low cost gigabit switch would probably do a better job.
(I draw the same conclusion after buying the same CRS125-24G-1S-RM to replace the mentioned combination. But the CRS still looks better in my rack and gives away less heat).

I replaced one of my RB450G with CCS125 (rack mount) expecting a better routing performance since CRS125 has the same CPU as RB2011UAS and I have observed about 25% better performance when replacing RB450G with RB2011UAS, but using CRS125 instead of RB450G gives me about 20% worse performance when routing than with RB450G with the same configuration ... I know CRS125 primary role is switching, but I can't figure out why such a performance drop compared to RB2011UAS when routing ...

JF

I'm facing the same throughput issue.
I tried the very latest release 6.19rc6 but the performance is still more or less the same for me

I'm having performance issues too, and I think that's normal with the CRS series..

I think it should just be used and expected to be a basic layer 2 managed switch.
So in your mind drop the Cloud out the name (there isn't any cloud features or cloud central management tool), drop the Router (it shouldn't be used for routing), and leave just Switch.

I get about 50Mb through the NAT / WAN connection, and about 500Mb through the bridge.

I guess just be careful what you expect from this device. Don't expect great Layer 3 or Masquerading / WAN throughput and don't expect a full features layer 2 (with master / slave wirespeed). you can use bridging as a workaround, and infact will likely have to (as the L2 switching features otherwise are limited and passing through to the CPU for routing between the VLANs doesn't work), so you are forced to use the bridge.

Also be aware that setting up this as a wirespeed switch is difficult and will need many hours of troubleshooting and confusing. there is no GUI way to assign ports to VLANs like its competitors, see the CRS examples guide how its is setup and understand that before attempting. I have set it up by the book/MT examples and raised a MT support case and still we cannot get the switch to talk to the CPU, i.e. ping the CPU interface from the switch (or devices connected).

So the way to use this is, set it up wirespeed, and trunk all VLANs to a router (i.e. CCR) that has power to route above 50Mb.

Im hoping that there will soon be:
* some aggregating options on the switch so it can do 802.3ad and IP Hash
* the switch setup will be simplified
* passing through to the CPU for L3+ will be resolved.

I think more L2 features will come as it matures, but until then, test the theory on a non production unit before expecting too much from the CRS series.

Have you tried the solution listed in the following post?

http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 16#p472506

It involves changing the queues in the ports from the only-hardware-queue to default-ethernet setting.

Let us know if it works!