interface bridge port print Flags: X - disabled, I - inactive, D - dynamic, H - hw-offload # INTERFACE BRIDGE HW PVID PRIORITY PATH-COST INTERNAL-PATH-COST HORIZON 0 H ;;; defconf ether2 bridge yes 1 0x80 10 10 none 1 I H ;;; defconf ether3 bridge yes 1 0x80 10 10 none 2 H ;;; defconf ether4 bridge yes 1 0x80 10 10 none 3 I H ;;; defconf ether5 bridge yes 1 0x80 10 10 none
By your logic, in two of my tests (1 and 3, eth1 wan - eth2 lan; eth1 wan - eth4 lan) I have two ~1.6Gb/s links, with a total of 3.2Gb/s to the CPU, that isn't in the diagrams.you are using it (1Gb/s) already!
see second test:
Tx + Rx ~1Gb/s for ports ether1 & ether4
the 1Gb/s from diagram is TOTAL bandwidth available, for BOTH sending and receiving
I expect an apology now ;-)
Don't believe that to be the case: I think the port attribution of all independent links is fixed, (but I haven't tested it...)1) If we are talking about 5 independent ports: the two 1Gbps links will be used, as needed. There is no hard assignment of a link to a group os ports.
Just for posteriority, this is NOT the case: Mikrotik always reports full bandwidth over all directions -> that 1Gb/s is shared for both directions!The 1Gb/s links are full duplex.
The magic word is "integrated". Integrated in the CPU I assume. When you route (WAN), then the CPU is always used. Port one to CPU and traffic to three have to share the same lane.Yes, but we also have the Enabled Switching diagram, which looks like this:
https://i.mt.lv/cdn/product_files/RB750 ... 190642.png
hEX RB750Gr3 - Enabled Switching.PNG
How can we use that? I wrote to support about it, we'll see if we can do anything about it.
So I guess you can't explain the data that destroys your theory about the 1Gb/s links beeing a sum of upload+download, can you?I you want some assistance or information you should be a bit more polite. Most of us on this forum are not here because we are paid for it.
And how would you explain it then, considering that this test goes right against the results of your tests number 2 & 4 from you first post here???
both were full duplex tests across two involved ports
This isn't how it works. The system is a SOC, with a switch integrated right into the CPU. This integrated switch uses two connections (as seen here: http://www.t-firefly.com/download/FireW ... MT7621.pdf) to the CPU. Each of these connections runs at 1Gbps.@Paternot your posted speedtest is one way at a time, I covered all the ports and tests in the screenshots posted above.
Also the Block Diagram posted above (disabled switching) seems pretty accurate to my findings. https://i.mt.lv/cdn/product_files/RB750 ... 161117.png
Having WAN on ETH5(or 3 or 1) will give best up & down simultaneous speed with LAN on ports 2 and 4, you can test that with two speedtests, starting another one just before the current one ends, on different servers maybe, so that one of them does the upload part and another one the download part.
If you switch your testing machine with the current setup on ports 3 or 1 you'll see half of the simultaneous transfer speed. (you'll still get 1Gb/s up OR down, though, so running just ONE speedtest will not show that.)
Like this, here I was doing just that, two speedtests:
RCS-RDS Speed Test 20210312.PNG
I have two hEX-S and replaced one with a 4011 connected to the internet. The other hEX-S is stil in between the 4011 and the internal network. It work fine as long you remember not put bilk traffic on the same lane as you noticed. The encrypting power of the 4011 is much higher than of the hEX-S and thst is why I got me the 4011.Exactly. Thank you. Using the SFP port as WAN gives it a full 1Gb/s lane to the CPU while the other 1Gb/s lane is for the remaining 5 ethernet ports.
One could buy 1x hEX-S + 1x S-RJ01 just for that if you have only ethernet ports, but at that price you can get the hAP ac2 which has a 2Gb/s lane from the CPU to the switch and you can use the switch ports however you want.
And judging by this topic, that is not a happy combination (hEX-S + S-RJ01): viewtopic.php?t=149599
Any hEX-S users using S-RJ01 like that out there? care to make some tests? is the issue mentioned in that topic above fixed?
Back to current topic, bottom line, I just wanted to see if it is possible to assign ONE ethernet port to one lane and the remaining 4 ports to the other lane, apparently not.
All but one of bridges would be entirely done in software ... HW offload is limited to single bridge per switch chip and RB750Gr3 has single switch chip.I'm not sure how it would handle, if someone made two or more bridges. This isn't a recommended config, anyway.
Ah, sorry. My mistake.I didn't say anything about half duplex links, there are two 1Gb/s full duplex links, one link for ports 1,3,5, and one link for ports 2,4.
@sebastia is the one claiming half duplex links, not me.
No, not a lie. I just thought they would be wrong.The datasheet doesn't say how MikroTik configured those links, but the MikroTik posted diagrams say how they did, like above mentioned and tested.
You can't saturate one full duplex link with ~900Mbps unidirectional traffic at a time, like your speedtest, which does download, THEN upload.
You CAN saturate one full duplex link with bidirectional tests, like I did above:
1<=>2 = TWO full duplex links in use to/from CPU, bidirectional traffic of ~1.6Gbps, ~800Mbps both ways of both links, no bottleneck.
1<=>4 = same as above, no bottleneck.
3<=>2 = same as above, no bottleneck.
3<=>4 = same as above, no bottleneck.
5<=>2 = same as above, no bottleneck.
5<=>4 = same as above, no bottleneck.
1<=>3 = ONE full duplex link in use to/from CPU, bidirectional traffic of ~900Mbps, ~600Mbps one way, ~300 the other, bottleneck.
1<=>5 = same as above, bottleneck.
3<=>5 = same as above, bottleneck.
2<=>4 = same as above, bottleneck.
There is a bottleneck when using WAN and LAN ports from the same link (1<=>3 OR 1<=>5 OR 3<=>5 OR 2<=>4).
For optimal performance and avoid any bottlenecks you have to use WAN ports from one link and LAN ports from the other link.
I just wanted to know if there is any way around this, besides using port 2(or 4) for WAN and ports 1,3,5 for LAN.
Or port 1(or 3 or 5) for WAN and ports 2,4 for LAN.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. That my tests lie? Feel free to do your own BIDIRECTIONAL tests, two ports at a time, post the results and compare our findings.
Until then, Cheers!
Yes. I'm thinking about moving my internet to ether4. It wasn't a problem, until 5 days ago - when I got a speed upgrade. The hEX is just a router - it's connected to a switch, and everything else goes there. I can't move the LAN from eth1 as I use PoE on this hEX.Glad that we see the same thing and thinking about using eth 5 as WAN. Yes it looks logical and you have a symmetrical distribution of the other ports.
However looking again, better is to use port 2 or 4 for WAN. Why? Using one of those tow port give you possible maximum speed on three ports and a lower speed on one port, which you can use for a less important device connected to you hEX.
Not as hilarious when my hEX is bought and paid for. It's already in place, was bought when my connection was 30/30, and here in Brazil we pay 50% up the suggested price, given our taxes.I think it's hilarious that we are discussing a 1Gbit bottleneck on a router that costs as much as the monthly fee as the connection :)
So, the two links are used by any port? Well, will be. Is it right? Great news! :DGood news! they managed to reproduce my findings and they will try to fix the issue in an upcoming RouterOS version, no ETA for now though.
So there is indeed hope for even greater power from this tiny box.
Thank you all for testing and feedback (even the negative ones, the world needs you too!).