Hows the BPG performance in 7.19.1?
*) bgp - fixed excessive CPU usage;
*) bgp - fixed memory leak on receiving notify and closing session;
*) bgp - improved performance on BGP input;
*) route - improve stability on BGP reconnect;
I’m pretty sure my edge router is rebooting all by itself due to these bugs, so I’m anxiously waiting to make sure 7.19.1 is stable so get these improvements… Does anyone see a big difference in BGP performance?
So, the only thing that need fix is your attitude
remember, MT put a file on their help page
named it UNIVESAL package
and when you put it on your device, device simply die, hard die
is it cheap device ? 250-300 eur ? no
is it easy to replace ? no
not every device have 10G sfp+
not every user have spare 5009 on the shelf
a little bit sympathy for those who belived MT and blown their devices will be enough
but your attitude show disrespect
And although you seem to have asked yourself several questions, you appear to have overlooked the most important one: Do I even need this update?
jjajajaja
Updated RB5009UG+S+ to 7.19.1 (RouterOS + Routerboard Firmware)
All OK
Half is my mistake, if i could named it mistake
since it is UNIVERSAL package, wanted to tidy up every device to have same FW
since 7.6 BB does NOT have brick problem && package is from official MT HELP page …
so,made a ssh script and rolled on all TEST devices, *mips,arm,etc
since TEST devices survived, it was safe to run ssh update BB script on production devices
and yes, TEST 5009 was other BB version, that is the reason why it survived
so, is it my mistake ?
from MT point of view, they say, ahhh, mistakes happens, you could drop your 5009 in trash
forum user who have no empathy will say … ooo we are smartest people, others are fools to belive
but if you look at my case, TEST devices OK,official MT package …
is it my fault ?
well, if you wish, name it that way
I haven’t upgraded yet to 7.19.1. I’m still on rc2, and all BGP issues I had that were introduced after 7.16 are fixed for my use cases.
Upgraded two hAP ac2 with wifi-qcom-ac to 7.19.1. No issues.
Could not agree. There is a highlited warning:
"This section only applies to older devices that display a particular error message! Do not change the bootloader without seeing a message instructing you to do it. "
Did you see that message? If not, then there is no excuse for taking that way. If yes, then you can ask MT for replacement as their soft bricked the device. The package name does not justify the ability to install it.
If other brand offers “…XE Universal” package do you install it on any device they offer or do you check what model it is designed for?
P.S.
Some time ago I bricked my Meraki … too many test, wrong packages, wrong connections … who knows. It’s bricked.
While that is true, that message wasn’t there before, it was added after people reported that they had problems.
Thanks, thats is not ideal to copy paste 300 lines but maybe i will find some time to try. I am thinking about return to wireless because even if this will work, it will be just untile next or next few updates.
In any case, discussion about the (not so much) “UNIVERSAL” update should go on the dedicated thread (where in the meantime user felixca posted a nice recovery guide for such bricked RB5009s:
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/rb5009-cannot-enter-the-system-after-restart/183645/1
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/rb5009-cannot-enter-the-system-after-restart/183645/1
@pe1chl
It’s there since at least Dec 2023 https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=230752305&navigatingVersions=true, not checking earliers.
Let’s face it, most of us who use MikroTik are bleeding edge types anyway. Every once in a while we all need a sanity check. There’s plenty of blame to go around. While it’s unfortunate that it has caused some damage to some, it ought to be a lesson well learned by all parties.
-MT will hopefully up their QA game
-Those aspiring to be IT professionals will test on non-essential hardware or wait it out
-There are always enough people who will “take one for the team” because they have the resources, or a lack of patience/experience
The rest of us grab some popcorn and watch.
While I sympathize with those who bricked their devices, the instructions were pretty clear even in the page version from 3/28: https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=314671223
A special package is provided to upgrade the backup RouterBOOT (DANGEROUS). Newer devices will have this new backup loader already installed at the factory. If your RouterOS is v7, your factory-firmware version is lower than 7.6 and your device displays the message > The “protected routerboot” feature requires a backup-routerboot upgrade < when trying to enable the feature, do the following:
This package doesn’t get downloaded when using RouterOS update functionality. It’s not posted on the download page https://mikrotik.com/download. If a user never gets the message above, they would not even know about this special package (I didn’t). And when the user does get the message, it would require them to actively seek for a solution and read the instructions carefully, as implied by the word DANGEROUS.
The word “universal” doesn’t mean “no thinking is required”; there is another universal package for v6.
While nobody argues the bug is bad, I think it’s fair to say that MikroTik put enough guardrails to avoid running into this bug.
Im having Wireguard issues as well but I havent needed to use the “Responder” settings on either side. This is in a S2S configuration where my home RB5009 is on 7.19.1 and work production CCR1009 is on v7.18.2
EDIT: Im getting the below log messages on both routers.
wireguard-DC-S2S: [DC-S2S] Handshake for peer did not complete after 20 attempts, giving up
EDIT2: Just reverted back to v7.18.2 on RB5009 and Wireguard S2S connectivity is restored.
First of all, the issue with RB5009 had nothing to do with 7.19. So it should not be discussed in this topic so please move this to another topic, however, I hope this will be enough - if you did “break” your RB5009 with the universal package, please open a support ticket and we will let you know how to get your router repaired (through the seller). Even after warranty.
After upgrading to version 7.19.1 in my hAP_ac2
Aside from the idiot (I’m referring to the one who was reported but the moderators didn’t care and left the insult),
we need to be objective.
Let’s base it on the facts.
In RouterOS it is possible to start the device permanently with the factory bios, in case there are problems,
in fact that option is already present on the system/routerboard.
In a lot of updates it is specified that to take advantage of it the firmware must be updated.
So it is logical that in the peripherals where it is selected to start with the alternative firmware, it is also necessary to keep the factory updated.
Not to mention that, to be safe, if you don’t update the factory firmware with something compatible with protected-routerboot, with device-mode,
and the minimum version that makes netinstall work (see other topics),
everything is useless if there is still the old factory firmware that doesn’t support none of them…
The package is Universal, so they also put the firmware for ARM64 / AMPERE 70x0 (Armada) inside.
But if there was no need, why include it?
It is assumed that some models (mine, for example) had the 7.0.5 factory (*) which recommended being updated.
So, no matter what happens, some, among the first to buy the RB5009, following the instructions, found themselves with a brick…
following the instructions to the letter…
MikroTik has allowed the device to be repaired (through the person who sold it to us) even though it is not under warranty.
An admirable move that should end this litigation and keep us all happy.
Thank you MikroTik.
(*)
model: RB5009UG+S+
firmware-type: 70x0
factory-firmware: 7.0.5
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/is-ros-7-6-ready-for-real-production-work/161797/4
Now it’s dead and I’ll try the TTL method.
@woland have the same device.
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/v7-4beta-testing-is-released/158543/11
7.19 or 7.19.1 solve the wifi-qcom-ac RAM memory leak problem?