Title kind of says it.

According to the mods... I run into throughput issues due to processors on the APs. The new cAP AC has a quadcore processor??? So maybe that will eliminate the problems I have with network connections over about 300M.

But I was wondering... which do you prefer? Local Forwarding or Not?

I don't think that it's related to the CPU of the AP - but you never know.
I prefer local wherever possible.
I'm using manager-forwarding only when the physical port of the AP is prone to manipulation (i.e. somone unauthorized unplugs the AP and plugs in something else, then I use an isolated network for the APs) - or when I need bridge-horizon.

-Chris

i prefer capsman forward because i can observe at capsman what upload/download speed every cap is having!

I don't think that it's related to the CPU of the AP - but you never know.
I prefer local wherever possible.
I'm using manager-forwarding only when the physical port of the AP is prone to manipulation (i.e. somone unauthorized unplugs the AP and plugs in something else, then I use an isolated network for the APs) - or when I need bridge-horizon.

-Chris

If you dig up my thread about throughput issues... Mikrotik pointed out the issue was CPU on the wAP related.

If I put an AP in caps-man and kick off a speed test... you see the wAP hit its head (processor) on the ceiling.

So what i gather is enabling local forwarding is a simple as adding ether1 to the bridge on my wap.

Is there a solid way to test this?

about local forwarding you have to login to every cap and make sure in bridge there is ether1. when you enable cap it automatics add wlan1 and wlan2 (if exists).
of course at capsman you have to set at datapath "local forwarding"

yes you are right. i made a btest with a ccr1009 and a rbwap ac and i can hit 100% cpu usage.
take a look btest tcp,both direction,capsman forwarding of a rbwap ac.