3 internets 1Gpbs
1 lan
pcc Loadbalance / src address
500 users
i had 750gr3 here and since the internets were 200Mbps till then they were fine. now i have put proxmox and VM CHR with 4 lancards with 6thgen i3 intel well this got good.
by anyone's experience what would be a good router for above scenario for lets say 1000 users max and lot of downloading and uploading of these users
Thanks
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
If you have three WANS each 1gig then consider the following
RB5009 - throughput around 3gigs so it fits........
If you add more WANS or higher WAN throughput 2.5 gigs then consider the CCR2116 is one solution.
RB5009 - throughput around 3gigs so it fits........
If you add more WANS or higher WAN throughput 2.5 gigs then consider the CCR2116 is one solution.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
thanks for the fast reply.
anything cheaper than ccr2116
i just used and old router and put openwrt in it. did vlans and routed to proxmox chr router and there created vlans too. (works)
just experimenting because these days economy motherboards have lesser slots and lots of fake intel or defective/fake multiport lancards being sold.
anything cheaper than ccr2116
i just used and old router and put openwrt in it. did vlans and routed to proxmox chr router and there created vlans too. (works)
just experimenting because these days economy motherboards have lesser slots and lots of fake intel or defective/fake multiport lancards being sold.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
Nope, you want the throughput, ......... any other router of same ilk will cost far more.
Trying to find an alternative, the best TPLINK ER8411 is on par with the 5009 (matches 1518 byte throughput approx 9k Mbps throughput) but it does have amuch higher VPN throughput but at easily double the price of the 5009. If VPN throughput was your major factor the TP LINK is very interesting.
I doubt it even comes close to the granularity achievable on the MT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Best bang for the buck is 5009, but concur it would be nice to have something between the 5009 and the 2116.
There is the 2004 but sadly its throughput is no better than the 5009, when you compare filter rules to filter rules at 512 bytes.
Cannot understand what they were thinking.................. mind you the VPN is almost twice as fast compared to the 5009, so perhaps its a tradeoff depending on what is needed.
If I had 3 wans each with one GIG and was contemplating more WANs, the 2116 is a powerhouse no brainer to easily handle that.
If sticking at 3 WANS, the 5009 hits the sweet spot.
Trying to find an alternative, the best TPLINK ER8411 is on par with the 5009 (matches 1518 byte throughput approx 9k Mbps throughput) but it does have amuch higher VPN throughput but at easily double the price of the 5009. If VPN throughput was your major factor the TP LINK is very interesting.
I doubt it even comes close to the granularity achievable on the MT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Best bang for the buck is 5009, but concur it would be nice to have something between the 5009 and the 2116.
There is the 2004 but sadly its throughput is no better than the 5009, when you compare filter rules to filter rules at 512 bytes.
Cannot understand what they were thinking.................. mind you the VPN is almost twice as fast compared to the 5009, so perhaps its a tradeoff depending on what is needed.
If I had 3 wans each with one GIG and was contemplating more WANs, the 2116 is a powerhouse no brainer to easily handle that.
If sticking at 3 WANS, the 5009 hits the sweet spot.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
agreedNope, you want the throughput, ......... any other router of same ilk will cost far more.
Trying to find an alternative, the best TPLINK ER8411 is on par with the 5009 (matches 1518 byte throughput approx 9k Mbps throughput) but it does have amuch higher VPN throughput but at easily double the price of the 5009. If VPN throughput was your major factor the TP LINK is very interesting.
I doubt it even comes close to the granularity achievable on the MT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Best bang for the buck is 5009, but concur it would be nice to have something between the 5009 and the 2116.
There is the 2004 but sadly its throughput is no better than the 5009, when you compare filter rules to filter rules at 512 bytes.
Cannot understand what they were thinking.................. mind you the VPN is almost twice as fast compared to the 5009, so perhaps its a tradeoff depending on what is needed.
If I had 3 wans each with one GIG and was contemplating more WANs, the 2116 is a powerhouse no brainer to easily handle that.
If sticking at 3 WANS, the 5009 hits the sweet spot.
before mikrotik i have had bad experience with tplinks. used their jet streams to omada aps plus not tweakable as you want agree on 5009
or
have a managed switch 8 port with one uplink 10g and pc with 10g lan card and vlan it
any ways thanks for the suggestions
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
Do these routers slow over time? maybe their 1:1 coils become weak or something like that?Nope, you want the throughput, ......... any other router of same ilk will cost far more.
Trying to find an alternative, the best TPLINK ER8411 is on par with the 5009 (matches 1518 byte throughput approx 9k Mbps throughput) but it does have amuch higher VPN throughput but at easily double the price of the 5009. If VPN throughput was your major factor the TP LINK is very interesting.
I doubt it even comes close to the granularity achievable on the MT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Best bang for the buck is 5009, but concur it would be nice to have something between the 5009 and the 2116.
There is the 2004 but sadly its throughput is no better than the 5009, when you compare filter rules to filter rules at 512 bytes.
Cannot understand what they were thinking.................. mind you the VPN is almost twice as fast compared to the 5009, so perhaps its a tradeoff depending on what is needed.
If I had 3 wans each with one GIG and was contemplating more WANs, the 2116 is a powerhouse no brainer to easily handle that.
If sticking at 3 WANS, the 5009 hits the sweet spot.
i have an internet at 320Mbps up/ down i though i was putting junk into the 750gr3, its about 5 years old daily/night on and i just formatted it and made simple program just to route the internet. i see low speeds. this use to work great when it was in 6 version now this has latest 7 version.
i also re did the firmware but still same any experience in that??
in 750gr3 the 200 is achieved in a slow rising graph while in chr the needle hits the 340 goes to 430 then comes back to the desired 330
chnged the lanwire and adapter too still same results
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
You mean Bridge filter rules ?There is the 2004 but sadly its throughput is no better than the 5009, when you compare filter rules to filter rules at 512 bytes.
In routing 2004 is better than 5009.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
When they changed from vers6 to vers7 many of the existing older routers throughput was reduced significantly.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
Zach, you are indeed correct for 2/3 models of 2004, unfortunately I grabbed the one to compare which has a CPU frequency of 1.2 GHz ( Amazon Annapurna Labs Alpine v2 CPU with 4x 64-bit ARMv8-A Cortex-A57 cores. While this CPU is running at 1.2 GHz, the router can be 3x as fast than the previous generation CCR’s) vice the other two with same processor have a CPU speed of 1.700 GHz (this CCR also features the Annapurna Labs Alpine v2 CPU with 4x 64-bit ARMv8-A Cortex-A57 cores running at 1,7GHz.)
The difference being for 25 IP Filter rules at 512 byte chunks
RB5009 --> 3096 Mbps RAM- 1gig 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 9552 Mbps )
2004 1.2 CPU --> 2768 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores, ( No rules fast path -207300 Mbps )
2004 1.7 CPU --> 4565 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 27644 Mbps )
IPSEC
rb5009 - 489 Mbps
2004 1.2 - 831 Mbps
2004 1.7 - 831 Mbps
RB5009 -- $219
2004 1.2 -- $465
2004 1.7 -- $465 or $595
So clearly for 3x 1gig WANS, the RB5009 or two of the 2004 models fit the bill.
On a cost basis the RB5009 fits the tighter budget.
If one had a high priority on IPSEC throughput, then the 2004 becomes more interesting. ( come on MT put wireguard speeds on your tables!!! )
One should note that for heavy loading, the 2004 with its additional RAM and connection processing power would stand up better.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (4) only the 2004 1.7 CPU would be appropriate.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (5) none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
If one had two wans of 2.5 gigs, none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
2116 $995 --> 25 ip filter rules -- 16,088 Mbps, fast path - 37,377, CPU 16 cores, 2 Ghz speed, 16gig RAM
The difference being for 25 IP Filter rules at 512 byte chunks
RB5009 --> 3096 Mbps RAM- 1gig 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 9552 Mbps )
2004 1.2 CPU --> 2768 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores, ( No rules fast path -207300 Mbps )
2004 1.7 CPU --> 4565 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 27644 Mbps )
IPSEC
rb5009 - 489 Mbps
2004 1.2 - 831 Mbps
2004 1.7 - 831 Mbps
RB5009 -- $219
2004 1.2 -- $465
2004 1.7 -- $465 or $595
So clearly for 3x 1gig WANS, the RB5009 or two of the 2004 models fit the bill.
On a cost basis the RB5009 fits the tighter budget.
If one had a high priority on IPSEC throughput, then the 2004 becomes more interesting. ( come on MT put wireguard speeds on your tables!!! )
One should note that for heavy loading, the 2004 with its additional RAM and connection processing power would stand up better.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (4) only the 2004 1.7 CPU would be appropriate.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (5) none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
If one had two wans of 2.5 gigs, none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
2116 $995 --> 25 ip filter rules -- 16,088 Mbps, fast path - 37,377, CPU 16 cores, 2 Ghz speed, 16gig RAM
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
True that MT RouterOS provides SIGNIFICANT granularity …. However when that granularity is exploited there is no guarantee that it will be reliable persistently and consistently with each iteration of the firmware …. Especially since the COVID outbreak [from a Software development perspective] much seems to have changed at MT that brings into question the reliability and consistency of the OS across the hardware platformI doubt it even comes close to the granularity achievable on the MT.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
by my experience. 750gr3 is 880mhz x2 ht to 4 and given it 1gbps without any rules just simple route the cpu can go uptp 80% still see speeds to 600Mbps only.Zach, you are indeed correct for 2/3 models of 2004, unfortunately I grabbed the one to compare which has a CPU frequency of 1.2 GHz ( Amazon Annapurna Labs Alpine v2 CPU with 4x 64-bit ARMv8-A Cortex-A57 cores. While this CPU is running at 1.2 GHz, the router can be 3x as fast than the previous generation CCR’s) vice the other two with same processor have a CPU speed of 1.700 GHz (this CCR also features the Annapurna Labs Alpine v2 CPU with 4x 64-bit ARMv8-A Cortex-A57 cores running at 1,7GHz.)
The difference being for 25 IP Filter rules at 512 byte chunks
RB5009 --> 3096 Mbps RAM- 1gig 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 9552 Mbps )
2004 1.2 CPU --> 2768 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores, ( No rules fast path -207300 Mbps )
2004 1.7 CPU --> 4565 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 27644 Mbps )
IPSEC
rb5009 - 489 Mbps
2004 1.2 - 831 Mbps
2004 1.7 - 831 Mbps
RB5009 -- $219
2004 1.2 -- $465
2004 1.7 -- $465 or $595
So clearly for 3x 1gig WANS, the RB5009 or two of the 2004 models fit the bill.
On a cost basis the RB5009 fits the tighter budget.
If one had a high priority on IPSEC throughput, then the 2004 becomes more interesting. ( come on MT put wireguard speeds on your tables!!! )
One should note that for heavy loading, the 2004 with its additional RAM and connection processing power would stand up better.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (4) only the 2004 1.7 CPU would be appropriate.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (5) none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
If one had two wans of 2.5 gigs, none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
2116 $995 --> 25 ip filter rules -- 16,088 Mbps, fast path - 37,377, CPU 16 cores, 2 Ghz speed, 16gig RAM
i took one i3 6thgen thats a 4 core 3.7 GHz processor and slapped normal realtek 1g lancards into it
wan1 1Gbps wan2 500Gbls wan3 300Gbps
when i try with only 1G its shoots to 1.2Gsometimes and comes to 800G 900G and preforming good
at a day 300 people are using through it
ahd stable ( its on proxmox chr)let me get my hands on a managed router with 1000Mbps 8 ports and 10g sfp upllink. vlan it to a 12th gen i5 with proxmox chr and vlan ,that would be cost effective
the only downside of vlan is that i will have to make a way for managed router to send and make a file in the router about actual port speed and then script the CHr to show in logs what is the connection state of the wans
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
i have a 750gr3 new one at the office, that will come to me tomorrow and then it will be clear if age has some effect or not. i even opened the old one to check the power capacitors if they were not creating some disturbance in line but they are okay.When they changed from vers6 to vers7 many of the existing older routers throughput was reduced significantly.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
i think it must be the lan connection to the cpuZach, you are indeed correct for 2/3 models of 2004, unfortunately I grabbed the one to compare which has a CPU frequency of 1.2 GHz ( Amazon Annapurna Labs Alpine v2 CPU with 4x 64-bit ARMv8-A Cortex-A57 cores. While this CPU is running at 1.2 GHz, the router can be 3x as fast than the previous generation CCR’s) vice the other two with same processor have a CPU speed of 1.700 GHz (this CCR also features the Annapurna Labs Alpine v2 CPU with 4x 64-bit ARMv8-A Cortex-A57 cores running at 1,7GHz.)
The difference being for 25 IP Filter rules at 512 byte chunks
RB5009 --> 3096 Mbps RAM- 1gig 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 9552 Mbps )
2004 1.2 CPU --> 2768 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores, ( No rules fast path -207300 Mbps )
2004 1.7 CPU --> 4565 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 27644 Mbps )
IPSEC
rb5009 - 489 Mbps
2004 1.2 - 831 Mbps
2004 1.7 - 831 Mbps
RB5009 -- $219
2004 1.2 -- $465
2004 1.7 -- $465 or $595
So clearly for 3x 1gig WANS, the RB5009 or two of the 2004 models fit the bill.
On a cost basis the RB5009 fits the tighter budget.
If one had a high priority on IPSEC throughput, then the 2004 becomes more interesting. ( come on MT put wireguard speeds on your tables!!! )
One should note that for heavy loading, the 2004 with its additional RAM and connection processing power would stand up better.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (4) only the 2004 1.7 CPU would be appropriate.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (5) none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
If one had two wans of 2.5 gigs, none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
2116 $995 --> 25 ip filter rules -- 16,088 Mbps, fast path - 37,377, CPU 16 cores, 2 Ghz speed, 16gig RAM
"""
CCR2004-16G-2S+PC 1200 frequency one
Each group of 8 Gigabit Ethernet ports is connected to a separate Marvell Amethyst family switch-chip. Each switch chip has a 10 Gbps full-duplex line connected to the CPU.
"""
ok so as per my resarch older ones have on emarvell chip vs new one having 2
so the difference must be single marvell vs 2 marvells vs better marvell chips connection to the cpu
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
ok so tried with a new 750gr3 and latest hardware version same speed 220up 350 down, came back to the old one downgraded too 6.49 and 290up and 250down.
back to my proxmox chr 340down 350up and the speed test needle rises in second.
one more thing i have noticed , as a backup i have 4g modem on wan2 that on 750gr3 gives 16Mbps up and down that in chr is giving 28Mbps up and down.
this is weird
back to my proxmox chr 340down 350up and the speed test needle rises in second.
one more thing i have noticed , as a backup i have 4g modem on wan2 that on 750gr3 gives 16Mbps up and down that in chr is giving 28Mbps up and down.
this is weird
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
any experience with CSS610-8G-2S+IN
if i can use it as a switch and vlans and have a 10g sfp copper rj45 and a 10g card in the computer and use that as chr
Are the van here hardware based. i mean no slowdowns right
if i can use it as a switch and vlans and have a 10g sfp copper rj45 and a 10g card in the computer and use that as chr
Are the van here hardware based. i mean no slowdowns right
Re: New ROuter suggestion please
Zach, you are indeed correct for 2/3 models of 2004, unfortunately I grabbed the one to compare which has a CPU frequency of 1.2 GHz ( Amazon Annapurna Labs Alpine v2 CPU with 4x 64-bit ARMv8-A Cortex-A57 cores. While this CPU is running at 1.2 GHz, the router can be 3x as fast than the previous generation CCR’s) vice the other two with same processor have a CPU speed of 1.700 GHz (this CCR also features the Annapurna Labs Alpine v2 CPU with 4x 64-bit ARMv8-A Cortex-A57 cores running at 1,7GHz.)
The difference being for 25 IP Filter rules at 512 byte chunks
RB5009 --> 3096 Mbps RAM- 1gig 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 9552 Mbps )
2004 1.2 CPU --> 2768 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores, ( No rules fast path -207300 Mbps )
2004 1.7 CPU --> 4565 Mbps RAM- 4gigs 4 cores ( No rules fast path - 27644 Mbps )
IPSEC
rb5009 - 489 Mbps
2004 1.2 - 831 Mbps
2004 1.7 - 831 Mbps
RB5009 -- $219
2004 1.2 -- $465
2004 1.7 -- $465 or $595
So clearly for 3x 1gig WANS, the RB5009 or two of the 2004 models fit the bill.
On a cost basis the RB5009 fits the tighter budget.
If one had a high priority on IPSEC throughput, then the 2004 becomes more interesting. ( come on MT put wireguard speeds on your tables!!! )
One should note that for heavy loading, the 2004 with its additional RAM and connection processing power would stand up better.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (4) only the 2004 1.7 CPU would be appropriate.
If one added one more WAN at 1gig each (5) none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
If one had two wans of 2.5 gigs, none would be appropriate and the 2116 would be the preferred solution.
2116 $995 --> 25 ip filter rules -- 16,088 Mbps, fast path - 37,377, CPU 16 cores, 2 Ghz speed, 16gig RAM
any experience with CSS610-8G-2S+IN
if i can use it as a switch and vlans and have a 10g sfp copper rj45 and a 10g card in the computer and use that as chr
Are the van here hardware based. i mean no slowdowns right