Hey,

So current situation is we've installed a new NAS and as per the hardware vendors recommendation are trying to implement 802.3ad Layer 2+3.


High level network is
1 X CRS226-24G-2S+RM for workstations
1 X CRS226-24G-2S+RM for servers and NAS
1 X CRS125 for routing above devices.
The two CRS226-24G-2S+RM'st are connected by 10G SFP

Easy enough then, configure 4 ports on CRS226-24G-2S+RM as slave in a new Bond interface. But then as I click apply it dawns on me that I'll have to use a bridge for this to work as it is moaning about parent ports

Okay then I figure this is a strong device and it's CPU has been idling under full network load up till now how bad can a bridge be? So create the bridge, remove the parents and bam it works. Seems simple.

But now the inevitable happens, kick off a backup job and put some data across the wire and the CPU has been maxing out ever since. Barely pushing over 150Mbps on the bond and 100% CPU.

I'm really hoping I've done something stupid or missed something obvious.

The NAS has 4x1Gb Nics serving two server 2012R2 with 2x1Gb Nics bonded, iSCSI and CIFS, and there are about 25 PC's accessing large CAD files from NAS too.

I came looking for this very answer. Trying to hookup a Synology NAS on a 2 int bond.

I think we are still waiting on better LACP/Bond support.

I have come to find after purchasing the CRS125 that it still lacks a lot of support of basic switch features.
Can't do bonding until it can be accomplished without the use of a CPU hogging Bridge.

I'll have to wait until progress is made to make this my core home switch. Was intending on replacing my old 1810G procurve, the web GUI (no/minimal CLI) is horribly slow and out of date.

As stated in the Wiki: "IEEE802.3ad and IEEE802.1ax compatible Link Aggregation Control Protocol is not supported yet". Hopefully we get that in the near future.


You can try balance-xor between Mikrotik devices I remember I did it once.
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CR ... s#Trunking

Your only option at this point is to use the Trunk feature in the CRS switch menu.  This is Static Link Aggregation, not LACP (802.3ad) which as pointed out, is not yet supported on hardware (even though the hardware is capable of it).  I'm curious why you're using a CRS125 for routing...it does have a better CPU than the CRS226, but it's still intended for use as a switch.  You'd be better off with an RB3011, RB1100, or any product in the CCR series.

The problem is the choice of CRS machines. They are powered by a weak processor (mipsbe), so if they are used with anything using CPU you will never reach wire speed. You will have better results with a PPC (RB850, RB1100) or the CCR series.

The limitation isn't just the CPU itself, but also that all ports share a single 1 gbps link to the CPU.  This means that regardless of the CPU strength, you will never achieve more than 1 gbps of routing performance.

Its not that its a poor choice its that the device is intended to be used as a switch. The router CPU is there just for management and the odd router feature that you might need.
Just that it makes it hard to use in a good production environment due to the lack of at this point standard managed switch features such as LACP.

As stated in the Wiki: "IEEE802.3ad and IEEE802.1ax compatible Link Aggregation Control Protocol is not supported yet". Hopefully we get that in the near future.


You can try balance-xor between Mikrotik devices I remember I did it once.
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CR ... s#Trunking

I would assume XOR still needs to be added to a CPU controlled bridge to work correctly?

Your only option at this point is to use the Trunk feature in the CRS switch menu.  This is Static Link Aggregation, not LACP (802.3ad) which as pointed out, is not yet supported on hardware (even though the hardware is capable of it).  I'm curious why you're using a CRS125 for routing...it does have a better CPU than the CRS226, but it's still intended for use as a switch.  You'd be better off with an RB3011, RB1100, or any product in the CCR series.

I should clarify, my scenario is a bit different. I currently have a RB2011 in place as my router/Firewall. The CRS is intended to purely act as a core switch and replace my existing 1810G procurve.

Its not that its a poor choice its that the device is intended to be used as a switch. The router CPU is there just for management and the odd router feature that you might need.
Just that it makes it hard to use in a good production environment due to the lack of at this point standard managed switch features such as LACP.

Exactly. The basic switching is perfectly fine, and I would settle for the 4k frames if I could do bonding without bridging over the CPU. 
Its disappointing that the basic features like this don't work as expected. This switch should be plenty for a basic home network. 

Exactly. The basic switching is perfectly fine, and I would settle for the 4k frames if I could do bonding without bridging over the CPU. 
Its disappointing that the basic features like this don't work as expected. This switch should be plenty for a basic home network. 

So, the use of the RB2011 makes more sense in a way, but has its own physical limitations.  What is the purpose of running an aggregated link?  Are you looking for redundancy or increased bandwidth?  You can easily create two bonded ports without a bridge (http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Bonding) at the router, but on an RB2011, this doesn't make much sense as all the gigabit ports share a single 1 gbps link to the CPU, so you'll never get higher than 1 gbps throughput if you bond two gigabit interfaces.  You can try bonding a gigabit port with a 100m port, but that just seems pointless to me.  If you're trying to increase throughput, you'll need an RB3011, RB1100, or a CCR.  Those are the only MT products that have the physical architecture to support multi-gigabit bonded links.

Exactly. The basic switching is perfectly fine, and I would settle for the 4k frames if I could do bonding without bridging over the CPU.
Its disappointing that the basic features like this don't work as expected. This switch should be plenty for a basic home network.

So, the use of the RB2011 makes more sense in a way, but has its own physical limitations.  What is the purpose of running an aggregated link?  Are you looking for redundancy or increased bandwidth?  You can easily create two bonded ports without a bridge (http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Bonding) at the router, but on an RB2011, this doesn't make much sense as all the gigabit ports share a single 1 gbps link to the CPU, so you'll never get higher than 1 gbps throughput if you bond two gigabit interfaces.  You can try bonding a gigabit port with a 100m port, but that just seems pointless to me.  If you're trying to increase throughput, you'll need an RB3011, RB1100, or a CCR.  Those are the only MT products that have the physical architecture to support multi-gigabit bonded links.

In my scenario forget the router or inter-switch communication.  In my case I am attempting to replace the 1810G that is the core switch of my network, where my PC an several other computers/users connect and access a NAS that is connected with a two interface LACP. 
Its for multi-computer performance. The 1810G switch config is poor, and I was hoping to replace it with the CRS. I have since discovered I failed to do my homework properly before making the purchase and have to wait for development to catch up. 

I would assume XOR still needs to be added to a CPU controlled bridge to work correctly?

Only on the other end, not on the CRS.

In my scenario forget the router or inter-switch communication.  In my case I am attempting to replace the 1810G that is the core switch of my network, where my PC an several other computers/users connect and access a NAS that is connected with a two interface LACP. 
Its for multi-computer performance. The 1810G switch config is poor, and I was hoping to replace it with the CRS. I have since discovered I failed to do my homework properly before making the purchase and have to wait for development to catch up. 

You should be able to make it work using the Trunk feature in the switch chip menu.  Personally, I've got my storage server plugged into the SFP+ on the CRS226 so I don't have to deal with link aggregation, but that depends on whether you have a 10gig port available for your NAS.