I tried enabling OSPF on RouterBOARD 532A with 333MHz CPU and its utilization was about 10% higher in comparison with static routing. RouterOS 2.9.x does not do that. Is it feature/bug of new implementation of OSPF in v3? Has anyone got the same experience? I have not found any info about this problem, so I am sorry if it has been already mentioned somewhere (please let me know in that case).
FYI: The router was connected to another RouterBOARD with 2.9.x via ethernet.
I examined my own 5.8 GHz link to HQ, which is a pair of RB133s (175 MHz). OSPF reckons with 34 routes in Area 51. CPU Load peaks at > 75% during OSPF flooding when the wireless interface is more or less idle (< 64 Kbps).
rgds/ldv
The problem is I meant CPU load in “idle” state. I understand there can be some load when getting link state updates and building the topology table, however, the load of about 9% (RB532A, monitored via SNMP) is present all the time. Does anybody else has such experience? Does somebody from MikroTik know about it?
I am unable to see the problem here…
IMHO only problem with CPU load is ONLY when it is constantly 100% for longer time. All other time (even ar 98% load) it is sufficient to do every task for the system
I think Mikrotik need to change this CPU usage percent indicator to tree state indicator - green 0-50% , yellow 51- 98%, red 99-100%
You have no idea what are you talking about…
He’s right: http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/CPU_Usage
Well, I expected some technical comments, I know the article about CPU posted on wiki, however, this is not the case when the CPU’s load is 100% for a long time, in fact wiki page does not say anything new, it is just step by step guide for newcomers. I just said that OSPF rises the load by circa 10% in beta7 during normal operation, 2.9.x takes almost nothing in this case. So that is why I think it is very likely there is something wrong with OSPF in beta7. I know there can be some things which might not work correctly in beta version, I understand it, that is why it is called beta, I wanted to know whether this is a known problem or not, respectively whether there is some solution or not.
you didn’t say it was 100%, you said it was 10% higher.
Yes, I did not say that, but there were other posts mentioning 100% CPU usage, I only wanted to explain it is not my case. However, you still did not reply anything useful for me.
I just have to inform, the problem is still present in beta9.