I searched Raw examples but there are no examples yet.
Just wonder which one is faster.
I think I don't understand your answer. Lets say we have 2 machines that can transfer storage using some port (we need lowest latency and highest bandwidth on this certain port between those 2 IPs) Is it better idea to put 2 rules in RAW table or add 2 rules adding connection to fasttrack?as you know raw is feature to drop packets before connection tracking it means that we can drop packets before the packets process by router.
fast track (FastPath+contrack=fasttrack)
actually usage of fast track and raw dependence based on scenario and solution.(fast track use mange facility and work on tcp/udp packets.
finally raw and fast track are two subjects separate each other.
Oh. So action accept in RAW just ends packet processing in RAW table? I thought it maybe stops all tables processing as in skips NAT, filtering, mangling etc. In case it doesn't i guess it makes sense how those 2 things can't be used in the same way for boosting valid traffic.JFYI: accept action in raw table does not mean to bypass all others.
Can I use FASTPATH on RouterOS?fastest way to get packet through - FASTPATH
if you need connection tracking (NAT in most cases) , and nothing else - FASTTRACK.
If you need to use other features, but some traffic doesn't require connection tracking - RAW table