Community discussions

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
xvo
Member
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:12 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: RB4011

Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:21 pm

Correction: 10 Gbps. Or more precisely: 12 Gbps because I use SFP+ link only for VMs networks on home hypervisor plus NAS. Other networks eg. for my laptop and phone go through dedicated LACP bonding 2G to CCR so I have total 12G pipe between CRS317+CRS326 and CCR1009. Also all other ports in CCR are occupied by some more demanding devices but they rarely saturate 1G as they don't connect to NAS. Plus backup 3G usb dongle for zero downtime :D
Doesn't look like a typical home setup :lol:

One question: why you need to push all that through the router?
Why not to switch the most part?
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: RB4011

Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:46 am

i think a CPU like Broadcom stingray (8 core arm cortex a 72 at 3.0ghz) can beat a a tilera 72 core CPU at 1.0 ghz (like ccr1072) because of the much better single core performance
... I don't think device like CCR1072 needs single core performance ...
the comparison with server virtualization lacks of one fact: some tasks internally in the router are related between them

not like virtual machines wich run independently and can load inependently the platform

i have seen many routers reaching their limit because one only core reach 100% usage while the others are below 70 or 60%

looks like in routers having so many cores causes higher waste of resources

in this picture you can see a router very close to their performance limit, averaging at 50% cpu usage wile only 1 core are close to 100%
core usage.png
we are wasting 50% of the available cpu processing available

why??

as you said because virtualization, in the case of this routers the lack of virtualization

with virtualized servers The opposite happens, you can choose to load the core you want without restrictions, you can put 20 virtual servers on the same core or distribute them in the available cores

because that the CPU the ones you mentioned (AMD EPYC) only make sense in server environment or rendering tasks because is the only way to take advantage of that amount of cores

the most common tasks only escalate well up to 8 cores in the best cases

for example the BGP routing process in the router, it benefits from a powerful core because is single threaded
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:43 am

One question: why you need to push all that through the router?
Why not to switch the most part?
Long story short - MikroTik switches don't support VEPA and I use VEPA. And datacenter switches that support VEPA cost more than MikroTik router that can handle 10G lol. And I want to have stateful firewall. Afaik there are no switches with stateful ACLs. Or at least they're beyond my reach.

for example the BGP routing process in the router, it benefits from a powerful core because is single threaded
That's design flaw of BGP processing implementation in routers xD Single thread is dead. Moore's law is dead. We need to start scaling everything because we won't go much futher in terms of single core then we already are. We won't hit 8 Ghz anytime soon, at least with current approach of CPU design. I hope CPUs like Threadripper 2990WX or Epycs and whole new AMD line (which will soon introduce 16 core / 32 thread to mainstream CPUs) will force all programmers to finally start thinking multithread from the very beginning. Not just in places where they need more performance.

We're entering age of megascaling - GPUs have thousands of cores. CPUs will soon have hundreds of cores. Even phones nowadays have 8 cores. Everything that won't scale will lag behind. Whole IT is shifting direction towards horizontal scaling. It's just matter of time and reimplementation of functionality. Hypervisors also have bottlenecks - especially memory access that is basically shared (sure there are multiple channels but still it's bottleneck). But look at how far AMD went with horizontal scaling. They basically glued together separate CPUs into single big CPU that is recognized by OS as single computing resource. It's essence of clustering and horizontal scaling.

Screen you just posted is not really reliable load depiction. I faced similar issue many times. What Linux refers to as CPU load doesn't take into account memory bandwidth utilization, cache utilization, i/o utilization and many other aspects. In that thread where I discussed issues with single TCP tunnel performance - none of cores reached more than 30% of load, yet still bottlenecking occured. /system resource cpu is not reliable source of information about system resource utilization. In fact such source doesn't exist without enabling full performance counters monitoring that would kill performance even more. Not all utilization of resources is monitored in OS at all.

It's cool to have strong single core but we had already hit the wall. It's time to take turn instead of bashing this wall.
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 4867
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: RB4011

Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:59 am

for example the BGP routing process in the router, it benefits from a powerful core because is single threaded
That's design flaw of BGP processing implementation in routers xD Single thread is dead. Moore's law is dead. We need to start scaling everything because we won't go much futher in terms of single core then we already are.
The problem is that many of those protocols have been specified in pseudocode, often even as state machines, in the official standards.
Implementations usually closely follow that specification, with only small changes to implement some manufacturer-specific new option,
and even those changes cause interoperability issues.
When you want a multithread implementation it may be required to completely redesign the algorithm. And while it could be possible
to do that and have complete interoperability with the standard, there is quite some risk that when different companies each do this
independently there might be issues between those versions.
So, such a change has to be carefully coordinated and maybe fed back to the standards governing bodies (to write a new specification)
before everyone jumps on the task of re-writing.
 
User avatar
BartoszP
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:13 pm
Location: Poland

Re: RB4011

Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:04 pm

.... will force all programmers to finally start thinking multithread from the very beginning....
Most people are single threaded :D
Real admins use real keyboards.
 
User avatar
xvo
Member
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:12 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: RB4011

Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:44 pm

One question: why you need to push all that through the router?
Why not to switch the most part?
Long story short - MikroTik switches don't support VEPA and I use VEPA. And datacenter switches that support VEPA cost more than MikroTik router that can handle 10G lol. And I want to have stateful firewall. Afaik there are no switches with stateful ACLs. Or at least they're beyond my reach.
I already got that from your reply in CCR1009 thread.
Well, you understand that this is outside of the needs for 99,99% of home users, right? :D
 
storp
newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: RB4011

Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:43 pm

But what about the VLAN thing, will there be problems running a few VLANs via the sfp+ port and get full throughput?
It should not be a problem when routing, it only could be an issue when switching and expecting wirespeed performance without CPU loading.
The CPU in these routers is quite powerful (like the CCR) so it can do a LOT of CPU handling without overloading it.
Of course it still would not hurt to buy a separate switch when you have high requirements (probably not even a MikroTik).
My intended usage are just for routing, I'm looking at getting a bunch of different VLANs to the router to be able to route them so it sounds like RB4011 could be the replacement I'm looking for. Hardware offload for ipsec is a bonus, I'm only running one gre+ipsec tunnel and even if it's handled by cpu in the RB1100Hx2 I get around 120 Mbps which perfectly fine for me but ofc faster is better. I assume the router will be passive cooled? I would rather not have to change noisy fans as I had on the RB1100Hx2....
 
8cqv
newbie
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:25 pm

Re: RB4011

Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:25 pm

If you google the wireless model you get the fcc report, it has internal pictures: No Fans

Case looks Matt like the AC^2, and plastic?

The main problem for me... is I want a new router now and it’s not on sale yet!
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:41 pm

If you google the wireless model you get the fcc report, it has internal pictures: No Fans

Case looks Matt like the AC^2, and plastic?

The main problem for me... is I want a new router now and it’s not on sale yet!
There's article on one site. Case is full metal. Only bottom is plastic. Case is basically integrated with hetsink so it's cooled kind of like CCR1009.
 
R1CH
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:44 pm

Re: RB4011

Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:40 pm

The spec sheet lists the max operating temp as +45 C, which is much lower than most other models. I've seen ambient (internal) temps of 60c on my routers that are inside telecom closets etc so unless this has some active cooling, I'm worried it won't be able to operate in the same environments as current models.
 
mkx
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:23 pm

Re: RB4011

Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:50 pm

This unit is obviously intended to use in "habitable" places, such as offices and/or living rooms (the wireless model), both by its form factor and by its look. Possibility to mount it in 19" rack is a plan-B (which is also indicated by form factor - i.e. unit's height which is much less than 1U). So it's not intended for extreme places such as non-cooled racks or sun-lit closed enclosures on top of masts.
BR,
Metod
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 4867
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: RB4011

Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:52 pm

The spec sheet lists the max operating temp as +45 C, which is much lower than most other models. I've seen ambient (internal) temps of 60c on my routers that are inside telecom closets etc so unless this has some active cooling, I'm worried it won't be able to operate in the same environments as current models.
Likely nothing has changed in the actual capability but such specifications are made because of complaints about high internal temperature and/or short lifetimes of the caps.
Internal temperature of the router is not the same as ambient temperature! It usually is 10-20 degrees higher (depending on the cooling that model has).
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:47 pm

Likely nothing has changed in the actual capability but such specifications are made because of complaints about high internal temperature and/or short lifetimes of the caps.
Internal temperature of the router is not the same as ambient temperature! It usually is 10-20 degrees higher (depending on the cooling that model has).
I think lower cooling capacity is another segmentation factor separating it from CCR and RB1100AHx4. I don't think this router is meant to run at continuous 100% load. It's probably a bit "overprovisioned" cooling wise so that it performs well if load is not continuous or cooling is adequate but it doesn't look like workhorse.

Also server rooms typically have external cooling solutions like AC.
 
whatever
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:29 pm

Re: RB4011

Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:17 pm

Image

Anybody else wondering why RB4011 CPU-throughput appears to be capped to 10Gbit/s?
Assuming both Realtek GbE switchgroups are connected at 2.5Gbit/s each to the CPU (like RB1100AHx4), this leaves only 5Gbit/s possible thoughput for the 10GbE SFP+ port!?
 
R1CH
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:44 pm

Re: RB4011

Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:27 pm

The spec sheet lists the max operating temp as +45 C, which is much lower than most other models. I've seen ambient (internal) temps of 60c on my routers that are inside telecom closets etc so unless this has some active cooling, I'm worried it won't be able to operate in the same environments as current models.
Likely nothing has changed in the actual capability but such specifications are made because of complaints about high internal temperature and/or short lifetimes of the caps.
Internal temperature of the router is not the same as ambient temperature! It usually is 10-20 degrees higher (depending on the cooling that model has).
By ambient, I'm referring to "Temperature" on the models that distinguish between "Temperature" and "CPU Temperature". Obviously CPU temperature is the highest, but I assume that temperature measures the internal non-CPU temperature (internal ambient). For CCR and other series with active fans, this is close to the actual ambient room temperature, but for passively cooled devices, the internal ambient temperature is often much higher than room temperature as the heat is not being actively removed.

The spec sheet is unclear as to which of these the maximum operating temperature refers to. If it's anything other than room temperature I would be concerned.

Example CCR1009 (active cooling):
Image

Example RB850 (passive cooling):
Image
 
User avatar
xvo
Member
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:12 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: RB4011

Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:32 pm

The spec sheet lists the max operating temp as +45 C, which is much lower than most other models. I've seen ambient (internal) temps of 60c on my routers that are inside telecom closets etc so unless this has some active cooling, I'm worried it won't be able to operate in the same environments as current models.
Likely nothing has changed in the actual capability but such specifications are made because of complaints about high internal temperature and/or short lifetimes of the caps.
Internal temperature of the router is not the same as ambient temperature! It usually is 10-20 degrees higher (depending on the cooling that model has).
By ambient, I'm referring to "Temperature" on the models that distinguish between "Temperature" and "CPU Temperature". Obviously CPU temperature is the highest, but I assume that temperature measures the internal non-CPU temperature (internal ambient). For CCR and other series with active fans, this is close to the actual ambient room temperature, but for passively cooled devices, the internal ambient temperature is often much higher than room temperature as the heat is not being actively removed.

The spec sheet is unclear as to which of these the maximum operating temperature refers to. If it's anything other than room temperature I would be concerned.

Example CCR1009 (active cooling):
Image

Example RB850 (passive cooling):
Image
The spec sheet always refers to environment temperature the unit can work, not the ambient temperature measured inside the unit.
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:54 am

Image

Anybody else wondering why RB4011 CPU-throughput appears to be capped to 10Gbit/s?
Assuming both Realtek GbE switchgroups are connected at 2.5Gbit/s each to the CPU (like RB1100AHx4), this leaves only 5Gbit/s possible thoughput for the 10GbE SFP+ port!?
I wondered if maybe all ports are connected into giant switch like eg. in CRS switches and there's 10G interconnect from switching complex to CPU
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: RB4011

Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:36 am

Image

Anybody else wondering why RB4011 CPU-throughput appears to be capped to 10Gbit/s?
Assuming both Realtek GbE switchgroups are connected at 2.5Gbit/s each to the CPU (like RB1100AHx4), this leaves only 5Gbit/s possible thoughput for the 10GbE SFP+ port!?
good question

i hope to see block diagram soon
 
User avatar
xvo
Member
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:12 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: RB4011

Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:00 pm

Finally:
RB4011iGSplusRM-180905135303.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
storp
newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: RB4011

Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:08 pm

Finally:

RB4011iGSplusRM-180905135303.png
Looks like expected and will work fine for my intended use! Any info about when the router will be available for order?
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:09 pm

Finally:

RB4011iGSplusRM-180905135303.png
That looks like beef, not gonna lie :D I wonder where this 10G limit in charts comes from because it doesn't really look like "natural" limit.
 
thobias
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:45 pm

Re: RB4011

Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:54 am

Regarding the lack of USB, as there are a miniPCI-slot for wifi. Russian site with pictures of the inside: https://weblance.com.ua/389-mikrotik-go ... o-4x4.html
If Mikrotik could make a version of the R11e-LTE with integrated sim slot we could maybe use this as 4g backup.
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:08 am

Regarding the lack of USB, as there are a miniPCI-slot for wifi. Russian site with pictures of the inside: https://weblance.com.ua/389-mikrotik-go ... o-4x4.html
If Mikrotik could make a version of the R11e-LTE with integrated sim slot we could maybe use this as 4g backup.
https://cdn.tindiemedia.com/images/resi ... b-norm.jpg

welp. Works for me xD
 
User avatar
macgaiver
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1688
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: Sol III, Sol system, Sector 001, Alpha Quadrant

Re: RB4011

Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:04 am

That looks like beef, not gonna lie :D I wonder where this 10G limit in charts comes from because it doesn't really look like "natural" limit.
Connect all wires and run max traffic - logical direction is from SFP to all ethernets and from all ethernets back - in each direction you can get 5gbps s0 10Gbps in total. That would be most typical use.

One can argue about "router on a stick" SFP+ setup to lift possible limit to 15Gbps total, but i think those will not be numbers anyone is looking for.
With great knowledge comes great responsibility, because of ability to recognize id... incompetent people much faster.
 
whatever
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:29 pm

Re: RB4011

Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:15 pm

One can argue about "router on a stick" SFP+ setup to lift possible limit to 15Gbps total, but i think those will not be numbers anyone is looking for.
Why not? That 15Gbps is exactly the number I'd expected to see as achievable benchmark limit for this block diagram.
 
storp
newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: RB4011

Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:01 pm

One can argue about "router on a stick" SFP+ setup to lift possible limit to 15Gbps total, but i think those will not be numbers anyone is looking for.
Why not? That 15Gbps is exactly the number I'd expected to see as achievable benchmark limit for this block diagram.
Could it be the cpu limiting the maximum throughput?
 
User avatar
macgaiver
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1688
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: Sol III, Sol system, Sector 001, Alpha Quadrant

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:30 am

One can argue about "router on a stick" SFP+ setup to lift possible limit to 15Gbps total, but i think those will not be numbers anyone is looking for.
Why not? That 15Gbps is exactly the number I'd expected to see as achievable benchmark limit for this block diagram.
OK, just give me a real life application - combination of fastpath and "router on a stick". As in real life average packet size will be closer to 512 than 1500, fastpath is only way to achieve 10Gbps+ speeds, but that requires no config, "router on a stick" requires at least some configuration, so the only thing i can imagine is to use this device as switch with trunk port, and for that CRS3xx will be much more better solution.

Could it be the cpu limiting the maximum throughput?
No, i don't think so, looks like bench-marking setup limitation.
With great knowledge comes great responsibility, because of ability to recognize id... incompetent people much faster.
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:08 am

OK, just give me a real life application - combination of fastpath and "router on a stick". As in real life average packet size will be closer to 512 than 1500, fastpath is only way to achieve 10Gbps+ speeds, but that requires no config, "router on a stick" requires at least some configuration, so the only thing i can imagine is to use this device as switch with trunk port, and for that CRS3xx will be much more better solution.
I'm using real world setup with router on the stick with fasttrack, full firewall and jumbo 9k on CCR1009 as inter-vlan router connected to CRS317 for servers and 2G LACP for users to CRS326. Though yes I'd argue if router on the stick is usable together with normal ports BUT you can easily imagine using 10G to some CRS317 and second 4G LACP "stick" to other switch eg. CRS326 for total 14G. It doesn't really sound THAT abstract - lets say servers traffic over SFP+ and users over 4G LACP as single user won't utilize above 1G anyways and then users traffic won't disrupt servers communication.

Also nowadays fastrack has significantly less restrictions.

Routers on the stick are less common nowadays due to L3 switches that can do simple routing at wire-speed but mikrotik switches can't do that and suck at routing in general so if we want to use CRS then router on the stick + directly attached gateway (so technically already 11G) will be probably one of more common scenarios. With more switches and more sticks - I believe 14-15G would be perfectly achievable. Please note that you need QoS and other stuff incompatible with fasttrack mostly for internet traffic which most likely won't exceed 1G, otherwise if you can afford 1G symmetric ISP, you can afford better router. All internal traffic (between servers and users) can be fasttracked.
 
User avatar
macgaiver
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1688
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: Sol III, Sol system, Sector 001, Alpha Quadrant

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:25 am

Just looked up good old CCR1009:
https://mikrotik.com/product/CCR1009-7G ... estresults

Same way of testing, same type of results, at least they are consistent, and these results also for previous model was around for years, nobody had any issues :) and that was arguable more server room device than this. and i still think it might be down to testing method restriction
With great knowledge comes great responsibility, because of ability to recognize id... incompetent people much faster.
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 23606
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:02 am

Yes, like the above poster points out, consistency is required to be able to compare devices. The test must be done in the same way, so you will know which product is better than others. Absolute numbers don't even matter that much. It is the difference that matters.
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
Matta
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:05 am

Regarding comparison between RB1100AHx4 and RB4011. If I don't need redundant power supply and I'm fine with 10 LAN ports, is there a reason to go for more expensive RB1100AHx4 ?
 
User avatar
ADahi
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:16 pm
Location: Iraq, Ninavah
Contact:

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:06 am

does Realtek RTL8367 manageable switch and support acl?
 
psannz
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Renningen, Germany

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:21 am

does Realtek RTL8367 manageable switch and support acl?
Nope. It's crap :(

https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:S ... p_Features
 
grusu
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:35 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:46 am

does Realtek RTL8367 manageable switch and support acl?
Nope. It's crap :(

https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:S ... p_Features
I think the chip has several possibilities implemented in hardware but are not yet implemented in RouterOS:

http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/prod ... ProdID=299
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:14 pm

does Realtek RTL8367 manageable switch and support acl?
Nope. It's crap :(

https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:S ... p_Features
I think the chip has several possibilities implemented in hardware but are not yet implemented in RouterOS:

http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/prod ... ProdID=299
Someone here said that in order to get hardware switch chip vlans it'd have to support Q-in-Q because one layer of vlans goes for router itself to separate ports of switch (which are not directly attached like in CCR for example) into non-switched and switched ports. Idk if it's true but it sounds reasonably. I always wondered how mtk separates ports in switch so that they're not switched at all, only seen as separate ports but using separate vlan for each port sounds like quite possible implementation

I'll need to void my warranty and check if it's true ;)
 
User avatar
BartoszP
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:13 pm
Location: Poland

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:20 pm

Real admins use real keyboards.
 
freemannnn
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 620
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:29 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:48 pm

looking at the block diagram, does it missing speaker? i hope not.

https://i.mt.lv/cdn/rb_files/RB4011iGSp ... 142219.png
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 23606
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:21 pm

There is no speaker
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:34 pm

There is no speaker
So... at the end of the day... It's kind of one trick pony. It's basically really simple and basic router that can route buttload of traffic due to SFP+ port and hardware AES. The end.

Things removed comparing to RB2011:
  • no USB
  • no screen
  • no beeper
  • no USR led
  • no meaningful switch chip (it actually has less functional switch chip than RB951)
Things that has not been added but were not present in RB2011 either:
  • SD card
Added features comparing to RB2011:
  • SFP+ (instead of SFP)
And costs twice as much.


Great job guys! xD

Image

It's well... just a router. Quite basic one. Especially version without wifi is bare af. It's probably one of the most bare routers MTK ever made :P I don't really count CPU and RAM as upgrade because it's just performance upgrade related to general progress in CPUs so it's just natural thing that we don't see 600mhz MIPS in 2018 as something even half decent.

RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN was the most full-featured device you had in offer. It had basically everything that other routers had, creme de la creme. RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN is exact opposite of that. imho it doesn't live up to its predecessor.
Last edited by lapsio on Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
Swordforthelord
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:13 pm

There is no speaker
So... at the end of the day... It's kind of one trick pony. It's basically really simple and basic router that can route buttload of traffic due to SFP+ port and hardware AES. The end.

Things removed comparing to RB2011:
  • no USB
  • no screen
  • no beeper
  • no USR led
  • no meaningful switch chip (it actually has less functional switch chip than RB951)
Things that has not been added but were not present in RB2011 either:
  • SD card
Added features comparing to RB2011:
  • SFP+
And costs twice as much.


Great job guys! xD

It's well... just a router. Quite basic one. Especially version without wifi is bare af. It's probably one of the most bare routers MTK ever made :P I don't really count CPU and RAM as upgrade because it's just performance upgrade related to general progress in CPUs so it's just natural thing that we don't see 600mhz MIPS in 2018 as something even half decent.

RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN was the most full-featured you had in offer. It had basically everything. RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN is exact opposite of that.
You make some good points. No Mode or WPS buttons either.
 
storp
newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:12 pm

There is no speaker
So... at the end of the day... It's kind of one trick pony. It's basically really simple and basic router that can route buttload of traffic due to SFP+ port and hardware AES. The end.

...
Exactly what I'm looking for! :) Will not miss any of the other features you mention. I could even manage with less ethernet ports, that's what one have switches for.
 
Swordforthelord
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:38 pm

There is no speaker
So... at the end of the day... It's kind of one trick pony. It's basically really simple and basic router that can route buttload of traffic due to SFP+ port and hardware AES. The end.

...
Exactly what I'm looking for! :) Will not miss any of the other features you mention. I could even manage with less ethernet ports, that's what one have switches for.
For me it's an issue of perception. They gave the device an X011 part number, implying that it was an updated but comparable replacement for the 2011's and 3011. But it isn't; it's a completely different animal. Yes it's a device many people will find useful but why not give it a different series of part numbers and avoid raising the expectations of so many people who very reasonably assumed that it would include the features of the 2011's/3011?
 
User avatar
pcunite
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 5:13 am
Location: USA

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:42 pm

For me it's an issue of perception ... many people who, very reasonably assumed, that it would include the features of the 2011's/3011?

Exactly. I'm not angry, upset, or disenfranchised with MikroTik, but I was hoping for a full Switch/Router combo. A do-it-all device. So, a little disappointed.
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:27 pm

For me it's an issue of perception. They gave the device an X011 part number, implying that it was an updated but comparable replacement for the 2011's and 3011. But it isn't; it's a completely different animal.

It hits especially badly if you take into account that many people (including me) asked for RB2011 refresh with some arm or quad core MMIPS (like hEX) and it seemed that MTK is finally going to do that. But instead presented device where the only things that it has in common with RB2011 is shape, number of ports and name.
Last edited by lapsio on Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
IPANetEngineer
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:46 am
Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Contact:

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:34 pm

Everyone's use case is different, but I'm actually happy they stripped some things out.

I look at this a different way - now you have a router capable of routing 10 Gbps peak throughput which is very close to CCR1009 number for half the cost.

All of the bells and whistles are nice, I agree, but i'll take raw throughput and a 10 gig port any day of the week to build low cost aggregation routers, small MPLS PE routers and aggregation of specialized services like PPPoE, VPN, etc. Especially since the higher clock speed compared to CCR1036 will likely improve the performance slightly of computationally heavy services like PPPoE.
Global - MikroTik Support & Consulting - English | Francais | Español | Portuguese +1 855-645-7684
https://iparchitechs.com/services/mikro ... l-support/ mikrotiksupport@iparchitechs.com
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:45 pm

I look at this a different way - now you have a router capable of routing 10 Gbps peak throughput which is very close to CCR1009 number for half the cost.
I totally agree that it is needed device. Cheap 10G router to make 10G more popular. It's cool. I just don't find it successor of RB2011. Look at it this way:

Image
This is really nice laptop. I'm not saying it's bad. Of course it's not. It's quite powerful, good quality, good performance, probably decent battery life, whatever. But it's ThinkPad only from name.

This is ThinkPad:
Image

Putting "ThinkPad" label on generic, blant mobile workstation without any special features won't make it any more "ThinkPad" than any other HP, Dell or whatever.

This:
Image

Is not the same thing as this:
Image

And putting 4011 label on it doesn't make it any more x011 series than any other random 10 port router
 
mikruser
Member
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:28 pm

Re: RB4011

Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:42 pm

Very unbalanced router
https://i.mt.lv/cdn/rb_files/RB4011iGSp ... 135303.png

Each switch have 5*1G port, but only 2.5G link to CPU.

What for this router have 10G sfp+ port? All switches summary have only 5G throughput.
do not ask me why it is necessary.
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:26 am

What for this router have 10G sfp+ port? All switches summary have only 5G throughput.
Router on the stick. Inter VLAN routing basically. It's common use case actually if you don't have proper L3 switch.
 
djdrastic
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:14 pm

Re: RB4011

Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:58 am

Weird question

Some of you might laugh , but from time to time we use CCR's sometimes to do burn in or test stability of a product by just running a mtk bandwidth test script between devices in a offline lab.It's not perfect as btest is single core limited , but you can with a fairly small form factor and investment you can push a couple of tb's worth of traffic through a device and see if it copes in a unattended way.


Anyone venture a guess if btest will work better on these things than the CCR1016's we use for extended stress testing as I recall a CCR tops out at around the 2.5gbit udp mark ?
 
User avatar
lapsio
Member
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: RB4011

Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:04 am

Anyone venture a guess if btest will work better on these things than the CCR1016's we use for extended stress testing as I recall a CCR tops out at around the 2.5gbit udp mark ?
If btest really is single core then I believe it should perform better than CCRs. It should in general perform better than CCR in single core tasks.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], mkx, normis and 2 guests