CRS109 vs RB3011 (the latest is the slower ?!?)

RouterOS General
1

Hello everyone,

I have been using a CRS109 as my home router.
I realize it wasn’t actually made to work as a router but as a switch, although until a few days ago I only had ADSL and 4G which didn’t actually need much horsepower and it was doing a perfect job until now.
Now I have a fiber 100/100 and when I was in near 100Mbit/s the router would go 60-90% of CPU.

So this way I had the great idea of upgrade this little machine for a new RB3011.

What has been troubling me is that actually the new RB is increasing the ping by 50-60% (9/10ms vs 15ms), not only that but regarding upload it seems that something is wrong.

I can max-out the download with both platforms, nearing 100,6 Mbit/s reported by speedtest and near 106,5 Mbit/s in WebFig.
BUT
I can’t max-out the upload with the newer machine:
speedtest reports: 101Mbit/s (CRS109) vs 75 Mbit/s (RB3011)
Even stranger, if I watch through the WebFig in Interfaces I see that the RB3011 is actually only putting through around 16-18Mbit/s upload while the CRS is actually putting everything (~106-107Mbit/s)!

I tried disabling fasttrack on the RB3011 which should be the only difference in configuration but no success.
RB3011 has v.6.34.1
CRS109 has v.6.28

Could someone give me a hint on how to debug this?
Could it be a faulty RB?

Regards.

2

Try the latest 6.36rc there have been a number of fixes for the RB3011

3

I tried with the 6.36rc12
Same issue.

Router isn’t able to push over 17Mbit/s of upload.
Whereas a simple crs109 is pushing a bit over 100Mbit/s.

Also, I am not able to do a pingtest due to some firewall reason on the RB3011, even though both firewalls have the same configs!

Not sure how to debug this…

4

Just to update…

Turns out it was the NAT that getting too heavy.
I added: “dst-address-type=local” to every port-forward rule (I had 8 ) and the speeds increased from 17 to 100+

I haven’t tried the full power on the 3011 because its only 100/100 fiber, but for now it’s perfect.

Regards.

5

Quick question on your addition of dst-address-type. Which NAT types did you apply this on? I would assume that DNAT for systems behind the firewall would require “dst-address-type=unicast” and not “dst-address-type=local”, but perhaps I am misunderstanding the documentation.