Why the hell built-in wireless and minipcie card shares the same IRQ????

I just have tried to run ptp (ospf) link on two rb912UAG and encountered BIG problem because card in MiniPCI-e slot ( ar9220 -ubnt SR-71e )
works for about 30 seconds and then gets blind and disconnects !
Afterwards wireless scan shows no available AP, nothing, completely blind!
Even more, disabling one of the cards makes the other better thruput ( not regarding wifi data rate)
I can't manage to work these two wlans simultanously!
stupid beeper has unique IRQ but WLAN cards share ther same IRQ = 2 !

Can anybody tell me how to get both wlan interfaces working simultanously??

Have you latest routerboot 3.10? http://routerboard.com/RB912UAG-2HPnD
If yes, contact support@mikrotik.com

Thank You for answer
upgraded to 3.10, seems to be no solution.
still one IrQ to be shared.

Mikrotik support, how to solve this problem???

+1

+2 still wait

why you think that you cannot use 2 wireless interfaces in RB912G? Have you tried to enable other interface?

I'm not thinking I cannot use, I faced the real problem on production link.
as I realised using both cards simultanously for ptp (either bonding or ospf ) is
limited due to IRQ sharing!
as far as i know
1 IRQ and 1 CoreCPU cant go with 2 interfaces on one IRQ
without speed degradation, it's a fact.
And it happens because other wlan is ON and takes IRQ time so with ONE IRQ only ONE interface
can transmit at a time? right?

Isn't it obvious and well known issue of shared IRQ since beggining of computing??
And problem with sharing IRQ is not new to Mikrotik,
it reminds me problems with some x86 back to ROS 3.30 times.
WLAN cards stops responding,can't see a ... goes blind/deaf.

I tried 3 minipci-e vendors ,rb912 5ghz and 2ghz version, all assigns IRQ2 to both interfaces.
I realise that when one card is meant to be AP the other as receive signal from AP,
You can't transfer data to both wlan at a time. so speed degradation is imminent.

Please fix the irq assignment so board would be functional as advertised, as for me now
it has critical problem that forced me to go back to x86 to do the job.

I see the same IRQ use as well when ever I put a mini pci-e modules on RB912UAG, but unfortunately any of my cards are supported by the ROS at all. What mini pci-e cards are supposed to work with the ROS?

Maybe they dont want to fix it with other vendors cards because ....

http://www.balticnetworks.com/mikrotik- ... ctors.html

Is the IRQ sharing your only issue, or are there any actual problems with your wireless? IRQ sharing on this device is normal, and is expected. This will not affect your performance or any operation of the cards.

If the card is not supported, it is not showing up in RouterOS. If it is showing in interfaces, it is supported. We support all kinds of Quallcom/Atheros chipset based cards.

If the card is not supported, it is not showing up in RouterOS. If it is showing in interfaces, it is supported. We support all kinds of Quallcom/Atheros chipset based cards.

Is there an official list of those cards? I've found nothing and random testing of my Atheros chipset cards are not working.

AR9580 chipset cards are tested to be supported.

AR9580 chipset cards are tested to be supported.

Is that the only supported chipset?

AR9380 could work, but I recommend AR9580 instead, it's newer, and tested recently.

I have my R11e-5HnD AR9580 1000mW on pre-order. I like supported configurations because I used to work in QA and you can never test every configuration with every piece of hardware.

I'm hoping that I can use the R11e-5HnD as the PtP backhaul running in a RB/912UAG-2HPnD which will be used as a 802.11bgn Wifi AP. I have had good luck running RB435G with two mini-pci cards in that configuration. The 912UAG series will be so much more compact. I have over a hundred RB411AH clipped onto UBNT antennas with Maxxwave's UBTik enclosures.

Also ... the METAL gigabit ethernet port and the 8-30VDC voltage range on the RB912UAG series routerboard makes it perfect for 12 and 24 volt solar powered installs. Gonna be awesome!

If anyone knows of a public safety 4.9GHz FY90 certified AR9580 chipped mini-pci-e card please let me know. Thanks

Normis You say no speed degradation due to irq sharing?
I did some desk tests and those clearly says that total thruput of RB912 is limited by the cpu/irq issue.
at the beggining of this test done over two 912 connected both wlans simultanously but transmitting
both directions, so using both wlan interfaces. then just one direction. And it proves speed degradation
because wlan were ready to go as high as 225mbps but cpu of 912 was maxed out.
when I started btest within connected 912's speed over wlan1-rx dropped from 225mbps to sad 115mbps

and You clearly see CPU is occupied with IRQ - 92% of CPU usage.

It goes Even worse is when set in real environment. I gave up with 50-60mbps = 100% cpu usage with configuration as follows:

RB CCR1016 < ---gig eth ---> RB912 (ospf to sim fullduplex) =======12km of perfect los/fresnel link======= RB912 or RB493G

test from CCR to RB493G was around 50 mbps one direction -send- with some addition of real traffic in background ( 10/2mbps )

Simple exchange 912 to x86 (d945g-sejt) and speed goes up to real wireless thruput 170-200mbps on a wifi link rated at 270/270

So if you say 912 is intended to have IRQ sharing feature, I can only say 912 is useless for me, and hope for minipci-e 802.11ac wlan card in RB912G
and gigabit thruput is kind of forget about it idea.

Do You really want to convince me that irq sharing has some advantages? if so, please count one.

greetz
Martin

NOTE: There was a mistake in the initial published technical documentation for R11e-5HnD devices. Actual maximum TX power for those is 27dBm not 30dBm.

27dBm = 500mW and is the correct specification.

I think you are asking to much from an 600Mhz CPU...you should bought 2x911G instead 911UAG+ wireless card.

the problem of the test is - you are sending stuff to other 912G or even slower router. Add actually capable router on receiving end.

test was made on desk to investigate problem, in real envronment simple
exchange rb912uag to x86 as mentioned above solved the problem.
so there is no problem in btest occupying cpu time but irq uses 92% od cpu.

of course You can deny what You see and I've tried to point out.
nevertheless I bought some 912 and they are useless for me and that is my loss,
because You deny existence of problem with shared IRQ.

1/Shared IRQ is a FACT

2/performance degradation because of SHARED IRQ is a well known FACT.

and i'm pretty sure that with decent amount of traffic over both wlans, latency
will suffer too. So we can encounter high jitter, packet loss etc.

I see no point in further discussion if You can't change irq assigment.

Best regards Martin

You can try overclock to 720Mhz or 750 if you can. Maybe it will help a bit.

no, overclocking is not a solution.
i've got 0 out of 502 routerboards overclocked,
I don't need another cause of instability in my network

Dear Janisk and Normis let us know if there is plan to reassign IRQ in rb912 in future firmware releases, or is it gonna
stay as now, never to be solved?

The most likely cause for your test result is the noise, caused by antennas being too close together. I suggest getting a directional antenna, and increasing distance between the two antennas.

Here is a little test we made.

[RB800 BTest] ---> wireless --> [RB912UAG] ---> wireless --> [RB912UAG BTest]

Here is the result, both interfaces enabled:
Second test! This time traffic goes through (from/to) CCR also

The most likely cause for your test result is the noise, caused by antennas being too close together. I suggest getting a directional antenna, and increasing distance between the two antennas.

? Isn't he running on 2 different frequencies?

Normis, can you give us more details about your test. Distance, power settings, tcp or udp, etc.

Yes, that test uses different frequencies for each wireless card. Routerboard uses the default CPU frequency which is 600Mhz.
Test is done on the table with attenuation cables between the wireless cards.
Wireless cards uses default power settings.
We used bandwidth test with UDP protocol.

In my test I was using different bands 2,4 rx and 5ghz tx so interference couldnt occur.
simple exchange rb912 to x86 solved the problem with cpu 100%.
You show no irq assigment, neither cpu usage in Your test, but it looks quite convincing.
Maybe 6.7. is solution.

In my test I was using different bands 2,4 rx and 5ghz tx so interference couldnt occur.
simple exchange rb912 to x86 solved the problem with cpu 100%.
You show no irq assigment, neither cpu usage in Your test, but it looks quite convincing.
Maybe 6.7. is solution.

CPU usage is not important, if you get the needed traffic throughput and users are happy. CPU usage is only important, if it causes problems. IRQ are always shared, do you want a screenshot of it?

Well I finally got my R11e-5HPnD AR9580 up and running in my RB/912UAG-2HPnD. Good news! On my testing "/tools bandwidth-test proto=udp" I did not see the CPU peg 100%
Yes it seems the IRQ has the same number but in this config my test did not peg the CPU (aka CPU-bound) which would limit wireless throughput.

I configured the 5GHz Mini-PCI-E card as an AP for a PtP link and did the same for the 2GHz radio on the main routerboard. I then have two other routerboards running station and station-bridge. One 5GHz the other 2GHz.
All radios running dual chains and in order to max out the throughput I set them both to 20/40MHz-below chan width.

2GHz Station -> 2GHz AP/5GHz AP (bridged wlans) -> 5GHz Station-Bridge

All gear running RouterOS 5.25 NV2

At 40MHz wide running a throughput test from one station-bridge (through the dual AP) targeting the other station bridge I got around 160Mbps (yeah I have less than perfect 2GHz CCQ on this quick test) but the cpu only was around 75-80% on the dual AP.
At 20MHz wide I got about 90Mbps and the CPU on the dual AP was only 50-60%.

I need to clean up the CCQ with a better antenna on the 2GHz and run the test again to see if I can hit max CPU, but so far I am really happy with the performance.
Im not expecting to get 220Mbps when I setup the 2GHz radio in its final role as a 802.11n wifi AP ... LOL

Other thoughts:
I would love to know when R11e-2HPnD with its MMX connectors will be available. ... yeah ... and the outdoor version.

IRQ are always shared, do you want a screenshot of it?

Yes

I see there are more ppl with rb912 problem using both cards.

http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79761

http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=81520

so maybe Mikrotik staff will do smthng about it?
My 4 pcs of rb912, are gathering dust on the shelf as for now.

There seems to be hardware problem, not shared IRQ. I got OpenWRT on RB912UAG-5HPnd, IRQs are not shared, but problem is still here - usage of miniPCI card kills onboard card performance.