Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
mobilexpi
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 5:24 am
Location: Santiago

Regular x86 mikrotik vs CHR with a non-virtualized machine

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:58 pm

Hi guys,
We have bought a 2U Dell Server with 4 Dual 10Gbps ports and we would like to install RouterOS or CHR on it in order to overcome the BGP limitations of our CCR1036. We are not going to install anything else on this server to make sure it has all the power available to handle our multigigabit WAN connections. I would like to know if anyone know what should perform better the RouterOS 6.xx install directly (we don't need Level6 license) on the server or the CHR over Xen?

Thanks,
 
mobilexpi
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 5:24 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Regular x86 mikrotik vs CHR with a non-virtualized machine

Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:32 pm

Anyone?
 
mobilexpi
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 5:24 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Regular x86 mikrotik vs CHR with a non-virtualized machine

Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:24 pm

no one? :(
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 3007
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: Regular x86 mikrotik vs CHR with a non-virtualized machine

Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:03 pm

i think the problem installing routeros directly on x86 without virtualization is hardware compatibility

thats the main reason to virtualize routeros

technically speaking virtualization adds certain amount of latency but is in order of nanoseconds, nothing serious

as far as i have read at the forums x86 virtualized routeros implementations can be way to obtain the highest performance of routeros
 
nadeu
newbie
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:50 am

Re: Regular x86 mikrotik vs CHR with a non-virtualized machine

Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:24 pm

For example x86 don't have virtio drivers, so you can't install RouterOS on a public cloud like Amazon EC2, Azure, or like it.

CHR includes virtio drivers, x86_64 support (i think), another license check...

CHR is for cloud, like tunneling between datacenters, etc..

Regards.
 
kobuki
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:59 pm

Re: Regular x86 mikrotik vs CHR with a non-virtualized machine

Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:48 am

For example x86 don't have virtio drivers, so you can't install RouterOS on a public cloud like Amazon EC2, Azure, or like it.
The installable x86 version does include virtio drivers, I use virtualised ROS instances at multiple places (on KVM, not Xen) with virtio, without problems.
 
kobuki
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:59 pm

Re: Regular x86 mikrotik vs CHR with a non-virtualized machine

Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:54 am

Hi guys,
We have bought a 2U Dell Server with 4 Dual 10Gbps ports and we would like to install RouterOS or CHR on it in order to overcome the BGP limitations of our CCR1036. We are not going to install anything else on this server to make sure it has all the power available to handle our multigigabit WAN connections. I would like to know if anyone know what should perform better the RouterOS 6.xx install directly (we don't need Level6 license) on the server or the CHR over Xen?
Virtualisation is and will always be slower than running on bare metal, but it has many obvious benefits - the ability to hide host hardware differences and providing compatibility, portability are probably the most important ones. I suggest installing on bare metal, on your virtual environment of choice and test whatever workload you plan to hold it against. The kernel in recent ROS releases is fairly new, I think you have a good chance of being able to run it on bare metal.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BenceLK, GoogleOther [Bot], Kevdevon, Majestic-12 [Bot], pama, Qanj72, smirgo and 201 guests