Community discussions

 
jkarras
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:07 am
Location: Utah, USA

CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:20 pm

I notice that in ROS 6.14 the switch chip menu still doesn't show up in Winbox for the CCR1009 models. Any update on when that will happen?
 
User avatar
tomaskir
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:28 am

EDIT:
See below.
Last edited by tomaskir on Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unimus - configuration management, automation and backup solution
Mass Config Push, network-wide RouterOS upgrades, and more!
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 24262
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:28 am

CCR1009 does have a Switch Chip
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
User avatar
tomaskir
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:33 am

CCR1009 does have a Switch Chip
My bad, I was assuming all the RBs from the CCR series have each port directly connected to CPU.

There is no board block diagram for the 1009 series on routerboard.com, so how is it internally connected?

EDIT: the block diagram on routerboard.com for the 1016 series is actually a link to the diagram for the 1036 series - how is 1016 connected internally?
Also, how is CCR1016-12S-1S+ connected internally, also missing block diagram...
Unimus - configuration management, automation and backup solution
Mass Config Push, network-wide RouterOS upgrades, and more!
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 24262
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:54 am

16 and 36 are the same, everything to CPU.

9 core has first 4 ports through switch, you can see this indicated on the front panel (see photo)
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
User avatar
pnajm
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Fri Oct 03, 2014 1:45 am

so can anyone tell me what is the difference between the switch group 1-4 and the rest of the ports,
what are the advantages and disadvantages?
why you cannot make a port from the switch group a slave to the non switch group? i know you can do it by using bridge.

thanks
 
jarda
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 7604
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:18 am

You can do slaves only within one common switch group. Enslavement means join the ports in switch. But if there is no switch chip you can just bridge the ports thru cpu.
 
User avatar
pnajm
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:39 am

You can do slaves only within one common switch group. Enslavement means join the ports in switch. But if there is no switch chip you can just bridge the ports thru cpu.
what is the advantage of being in a switch group and not being in it? :)
 
frankie
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Fri Oct 03, 2014 10:08 am

Wire speed without CPU-load.
 
roborkk
just joined
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:07 am
Location: Slovak republic

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:30 pm

I have a CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+.
My question is, what interfaces can be used-for best performance, if this CCR will by used as edge router. With one Eth port as LAN and other port as WAN. Traffic 300 - 400Mbps, with routing and NAT.
Thank you very much.
 
lashguti
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:42 am

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:07 pm

I have a CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+.
My question is, what interfaces can be used-for best performance, if this CCR will by used as edge router. With one Eth port as LAN and other port as WAN. Traffic 300 - 400Mbps, with routing and NAT.
Thank you very much.
why nobody answered your post? I think you should use ports beyond 1-4, I am going to test it today, because I have max850mb when incoming are ether1 and 3 and outgoing is sfp1, I will try non-switch ports as incoming, this design is not carrier class, or at least we should have been told about it
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:02 am

looks like switched ports are less efficient consumming more cpu

best to use cpu direct ports eth 5,6,7,8 sfp and sfp+
 
Florian
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:45 am
Location: France

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Mon Mar 14, 2016 12:01 pm

Hello there, and sorry for posting in this old topic. Sorry for my bad english too, it's not my native language.

I'll receive my CCR 1009 soon, and I don't get something about the swtich chip / switch ports.

My CCR will replace and ISP box, home usage.

My wan will be on port 8 , and my LAN on port 5 , since they are both "cpu port", I figured it was the more efficient way to do things.

Now, my plan was to connect a switch to the port 5, and so my computers would be accessible.

(WAN/Ether8 ==> FW/NAT Rules ==> LAN/Ether5 ==> Switch => multiples PCs and stuff)

From what I read, I can group the switched ports on the CCR, 1 to 4, and they act like a normal L2 switch. But how will they communicate with the port 5 ?

In my head, I was thinking about declared Ether5 as the master port of ether1 to 4, but I believe it's not possible to do that since ether5 is a "cpu" port, not a switched one.

I must be wrong somewhere... Anybody can help me ? Thx you :)
- Sorry for my english -
 
hedele
Member
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Mon Mar 14, 2016 12:18 pm

Well, just use port 1 as your LAN port, and set port 2-4 to have port 1 as master-port. Don't use port 5 if you don't need it :) If you do need Port 5, you will have to create a bridge, and add port 1 and port 5 as members of the bridge (port 2-4 are already slaves of port 1, adding them is both not necessary and not possible), then move all your LAN configuration (DHCP server, ip addresses, etc..) to the bridge interface. Traffic between Ports 1-4 will still be switched in hardware, traffic between ports 1-4 and port 5 will be software-forwarded by CPU, which is less efficient, but the CCR1009 can easily handle that.
 
Florian
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:45 am
Location: France

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:02 pm

Thx a lot for the explanation and instructions.

Without even using the bridge method, I'm still "afraid" of performances problems if I firewall/nat to a switched port.

I've a 1gb/sec fiber connexion, would like to use fastpath, fasttrack&stuff. So, I guess I'll just put a switch I already have on ether5, It seems the most efficient thing to me.

But I'll keep in mind your solution, and maybe test it, to see the implications in terms of performances and functionality.

Thx again.
- Sorry for my english -
 
hedele
Member
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:54 pm

You don't really need to be afraid of bandwidth issues on the switch-group. The only way you can oversaturate the 1gbps connection to the CPU is by downloading full speed to the switch-group from WAN, and also trying to download full speed to the switch-group from port 5 at the same time - which will cause contention. Transfers within the switch-group will never cause contention on the CPU connection because the packets will never leave the switch chip.

So you can for example do in parallel:

1 gbps transfer from WAN to port 1 (enters switch-group through CPU)
1 gbps transfer from port 2 to WAN (leaves switch-group through CPU)
1 gbps transfer from port 3 to port 4 (does not leave switch-group)
1 gbps transfer from port 4 to port 3 (does not leave switch-group)
1 gbps transfer from port 1 to port 2 (does not leave switch-group)

but this in addition will cause contention because the switch connection is full:
1 gbps transfer from port 5 to port 2 (through CPU to software bridge)

So unless you really positively want to throw in an extra switch for just one extra device, just keep in mind to put the device where you expect the least amount of intra-LAN traffic on port 5 (like a printer or cable set-top box).

Other than the switch-group ports sharing 1 gbps full-duplex towards the CPU, Routing/NATing etc. to a port in a switch-group is not slower than it is on any other port.
 
Florian
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:45 am
Location: France

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:07 pm

...

Other than the switch-group ports sharing 1 gbps full-duplex towards the CPU, Routing/NATing etc. to a port in a switch-group is not slower than it is on any other port.
That was my main problem, because I read that switch port used more cpu than "cpu port".

But if it's wrong, great, I can use more port then and not use another switch.

Thx again for the informations :)
- Sorry for my english -
 
hedele
Member
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:05 pm

That was my main problem, because I read that switch port used more cpu than "cpu port".
I have read that a few times as well, but could never reliably reproduce it in lab tests on both RB1100AHx2 and CCR1009-PC. If there is a difference, it is so minor it barely makes an impact.
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:57 am

That was my main problem, because I read that switch port used more cpu than "cpu port".
I have read that a few times as well, but could never reliably reproduce it in lab tests on both RB1100AHx2 and CCR1009-PC. If there is a difference, it is so minor it barely makes an impact.
you are right is better to support this topic with some testing to size correctly the impact of this changes

give me some time to test on my CCR1009
 
Florian
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:45 am
Location: France

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:35 am

That was my main problem, because I read that switch port used more cpu than "cpu port".
I have read that a few times as well, but could never reliably reproduce it in lab tests on both RB1100AHx2 and CCR1009-PC. If there is a difference, it is so minor it barely makes an impact.
you are right is better to support this topic with some testing to size correctly the impact of this changes

give me some time to test on my CCR1009

That would be great, thx you.
- Sorry for my english -
 
hedele
Member
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:18 pm

I also received a CCR1009 in the lab today and can probably run some tests tomorrow. :) Will be interesting to compare results.

Edit: moved to separate post
 
hedele
Member
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:32 pm

I used a CCR1016 running traffic generator (2 UDP streams) as source for my tests, the sink was also a CCR1016. So the test looks like this:

CCR1016-1 (sfp1) ---> (eth5) CCR1009 (eth1/6) ---> (sfp1) CCR1016-2
All devices were running ROS 6.32.3

I used a packet size of 64 bytes, because once we know how many packets per second we can forward, it's easy to calculate throughput at any given packet size. I used ether 5 on the CCR1009 as "wan" port, and ether 1 and 6 as switched and non-switched "lan" port

Using fastpath routing only, i get the following results:
ether1: 1340 kpps; 12% cpu-used, /tool profile shows 79% idle, 13% networking, 8% ethernet
ether6: 1410 kpps; 11% cpu-used, /tool profile shows 88% idle, 11% networking, 0% ethernet

All CPU cores were more or less evenly loaded. I don't know what's up with the difference between the indicated CPU load (cpu-used) using /system resource monitor and the "idle" stat in /tool profile. One of them is clearly wrong.


I then repeated the tests with dst-nat and fasttrack activated, so that the CCR1009 would dst-nat the traffic stream to CCR1016-2, and not just plainly route it, giving the following results:

ether1: 300 kpps; 33% cpu-used, /tool profile shows 66% idle, 18% firewall, 4% ethernet, 13% networking
ether6: 320 kpps; 34% cpu-used, /tool profile shows 66% idle, 18% firewall, 14% networking

The CPU load was uneven - only three cores were used, and all of them were running at 100%. The other cores were idle at 0%. The connection showed up as fasttracked in firewall connection tracking, but the ipv4-fasttrack-bytes counter in ip settings was stuck at 0, so fasttrack does not appear to work with dst-nat? Again, there is some discrepancy between indicated CPU load and idle stat in /tool profile.

Summary:
Even if we use the slowest result I was able to get, the potential throughput (300k pps @ 1500 Bytes) with dst-nat is 3,6 Gbit/s - you can only push 1 gbit/s through the switch-group, so even using the slowest possible configuration the CCR1009 is still about 1.8 times faster (full-duplex) than it needs to be. There is a measurable speed difference between using a switchport and a directly connected port, but it's rather small. I am not sure what to make of the CPU load readings though. One of these readings is clearly wrong, but i can't say which one.

Edit: I ran the dst-nat tests again, with fasttrack disabled, and got increased throughput of around 420kpps on ether1 instead of 300kpps. I have no idea why. Following the fasttrack instructions in the Wiki, the dst-nat connections do not get fasttracked.

Edit 2: Okay, Fasttrack does not work with Traffic Generator because apparently in order for fasttrack to work, there needs to be traffic in both directions :D Using Bandwidth-Test in both directions Fasttrack starts working, Bandwidth-Test in one direction (either send or receive only) also does not trigger fasttrack for some reason. I will leave the "slow" results up though, because I think it's good to show a "worst case". I also want to note that even when fasttrack is working, the CPU load is still spread unevenly, only 3 cores are doing work, the other 6 are idle. Fasttrack with NAT is around 4 times faster than not using fasttrack (16% cpu-used at 600k pps; bandwidth-test is not multithreaded and cannot generate more packets on a CCR1016 on one core only).
 
tmin
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: CCR 1009 switch chip menu

Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:41 pm

I used a CCR1016 running traffic generator (2 UDP streams) as source for my tests, the sink was also a CCR1016. So the test looks like this:
Hi.
I'm a bit confused as I have read in one of Janis posts: "You have to configure your test in a way that packet leave your traffic-generator and afterwards that same router is receiving them back."
Could you please describe - what is seen on the sink CCR1016-2 when it got hit by the traffic generated by the first CCR1016?
Is it explicitly configured as a sink / receiver?
Does it measure any meaningful latency/jitter data of the received streams?
Does it measure any meaningful Rx losses?
My guess - may be packet/stream patterns were configured symmetrically on both CCR1016 routers to made each one think it is receiving back its own stream?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests