Community discussions

 
User avatar
Hammy
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Topic Author
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: DeKalb, IL
Contact:

RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:05 pm

What do you think is faster at BGP, an RB4011 or a CCR1009? By how much?


https://youtu.be/yxLWbUoFE-M
-----
Mike Hammett

The Brothers WISP
 
schadom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:47 am
Location: Austria

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:25 pm

Thank you for the benchmark. The outcome of this must literally feel like a punch in the face for those business customers who bought the fairly expensive CCR1036 or CCR1072 models in the past. The new RB4011 seems to outperform the CCR-series in BGP convergence time - and that for just 200 bucks!

@MT: Multi-threaded BGP must be implemented more urgently than ever!!! Please make this your top priority for the next ROS releases. Why someone would need a 9/16/36/72-core Edge-Router when the BGP implementation can't even utilize the hardware's full potential?
Last edited by schadom on Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:01 pm, edited 22 times in total.
 
User avatar
pcunite
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 5:13 am
Location: USA

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:26 pm

Thank you for testing.
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:31 pm

A15:

https://www.arm.com/files/pdf/AT-Explor ... ex-A15.pdf

There's some basic TILE arch info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE64

A TILE core seems to be very simple. A15 looks very complex.
 
User avatar
pcunite
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 5:13 am
Location: USA

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:22 pm

The outcome of this must literally feel like a punch in the face for those business customers who bought the fairly expensive CCR1036 or CCR1072 models in the past.

Not at all. Things improve over time. The fact that it was released, the pricing level, this is a complement to using the MikroTik platform.
 
schadom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:47 am
Location: Austria

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:09 pm

Things improve over time.

Improvement needs time, I agree, but many of the issues related to the routing-engine are known since at least 2012, the year in which the CCR-series and 6.x were released. Since then we've been told multiple times to just be patient and wait for ROSv7. Now it's 2018 and still no significant improvements to the routing-engine have been made, no multi-threading thus poor convergence time. Buying a CCR feels like buying a Porsche while living inside Vatican City: not worth it because you can't even drive faster than 20mph. Instead of throwing new hardware onto the market every few months, improving the existing software to better utilize the current hardware models would be the way to go.
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:15 pm

Newer hardware is still needed because Mikrotik does not fit well all basic needs.
 
schadom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:47 am
Location: Austria

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:23 pm

Newer hardware is still needed because Mikrotik does not fit well all basic needs.
Of course it is, but throwing new hardware on the market still won't fix any of the existing software-related issues and limitations.
 
User avatar
Hammy
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Topic Author
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: DeKalb, IL
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:21 pm

Thank you for the benchmark. The outcome of this must literally feel like a punch in the face for those business customers who bought the fairly expensive CCR1036 or CCR1072 models in the past. The new RB4011 seems to outperform the CCR-series in BGP convergence time - and that for just 200 bucks!

@MT: Multi-threaded BGP must be implemented more urgently than ever!!! Please make this your top priority for the next ROS releases. Why someone would need a 9/16/36/72-core Edge-Router when the BGP implementation can't even utilize the hardware's full potential?
Stop with the multithreaded BGP.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 4744771319
-----
Mike Hammett

The Brothers WISP
 
schadom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:47 am
Location: Austria

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:36 pm

Ok then what about a new CCR series with beefy x86 quad/hexa/octa/deca-cores ;-)
 
djdrastic
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:14 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:39 pm

Thanks this was great guys.Now if they could add some RAM , redundant PSU's and some extra SFP+ slots I can finally junk these CCR's :lol:
 
joegoldman
Member
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:05 am

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:22 am

Not going to stop at all. BGP processing and FIB updates definitely need to become more multithreaded. I have only 1 million routes in one of my CCR1036's, thats only a single full table and some IX routes. Even at that level it takes 3-5 minutes to make it into the RIB and another 3-5 minutes before its added to the FIB. This is whether I'm adding a static route or waiting for a BGP peer to converge. Even small BGP peers i.e. customer ones with 1-5 routes still take 5-10 minutes for BGP convergence to happen. This is vastly different to single threaded BGP on Cisco, Juniper etc because they are more highly optimised and likely faster cores (and less of them) the TILE architecture has a quantity over quality approach (36 cores, 72 cores etc) so really needs to play to its strengths and be able to use the many cores to do these updates.

If the workload could be cut out to 72 threads we could be looking at <1 minute converge / update time.
 
User avatar
Hammy
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Topic Author
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: DeKalb, IL
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:14 am

Not going to stop at all. BGP processing and FIB updates definitely need to become more multithreaded. I have only 1 million routes in one of my CCR1036's, thats only a single full table and some IX routes. Even at that level it takes 3-5 minutes to make it into the RIB and another 3-5 minutes before its added to the FIB. This is whether I'm adding a static route or waiting for a BGP peer to converge. Even small BGP peers i.e. customer ones with 1-5 routes still take 5-10 minutes for BGP convergence to happen. This is vastly different to single threaded BGP on Cisco, Juniper etc because they are more highly optimised and likely faster cores (and less of them) the TILE architecture has a quantity over quality approach (36 cores, 72 cores etc) so really needs to play to its strengths and be able to use the many cores to do these updates.

If the workload could be cut out to 72 threads we could be looking at <1 minute converge / update time.
Didn't take the time to read the link, I take it?
-----
Mike Hammett

The Brothers WISP
 
User avatar
vecernik87
Member
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:19 am

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:28 am

Is it even possible to do table updates in paralel mode without causing some other issues? Why would EVERY manufacturer end up with single-threaded BGP?
I saw couple of research papers with experimental implementations of multithreaded BGP, but I am unaware of real implementation by any manufacturer.

Despite the fact I do not deal with BGP in my routers, I support your pursue of speed. However, if the request goes against nature of task, it simply can't be fulfilled.
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:47 am

Not going to stop at all. BGP processing and FIB updates definitely need to become more multithreaded. I have only 1 million routes in one of my CCR1036's, thats only a single full table and some IX routes. Even at that level it takes 3-5 minutes to make it into the RIB and another 3-5 minutes before its added to the FIB. This is whether I'm adding a static route or waiting for a BGP peer to converge. Even small BGP peers i.e. customer ones with 1-5 routes still take 5-10 minutes for BGP convergence to happen. This is vastly different to single threaded BGP on Cisco, Juniper etc because they are more highly optimised and likely faster cores (and less of them) the TILE architecture has a quantity over quality approach (36 cores, 72 cores etc) so really needs to play to its strengths and be able to use the many cores to do these updates.

If the workload could be cut out to 72 threads we could be looking at <1 minute converge / update time.
Didn't take the time to read the link, I take it?
Some people don't click on facebook.
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 23608
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:48 am

Those without facebook. Actually Andrew has written it correctly. Here is what he says there:
My new response to people saying Mikrotik BGP being single threaded is causing them performance issues:
A few points:
1) Control Plane ≠ Forwarding Plane
While the processing of routing updates happens in a single thread, packet forwarding (the actual movement of your packets) is already multi-core capable.

2) BGP is single threaded on Cisco IOS, IOS-XE and IOS-XR as well as on Juniper JunOS and Nokia SRos
The processing of routing updates, and in particular the application of route-filters needs to happen in a &quot;run to completion&quot; matter. That means that running it across multiple threads will result in unpredictable results. This is why you cant just &quot;make BGP multi-threaded&quot;. What can be done is to split each protocol to a separate process with a central &quot;conductor&quot; process, this is what Quagga/FRR do with the zebrad process, and what JunOS does with RPD.
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
paulct
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:38 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:54 am

Moral of the story...

We hope that Mikrotik is going to update the CCR line to support ARM processors. Tilera has had its day. At least we will get an immediate benfit in raw CPU power for the likes of BGP, firewall, routing etc..
I can only then presume that v7 or whatever you want to call it will be easier to code and implement as an industry standard CPU architecture is being used rather than a obscure Tilera architecture.

There was a thread of at least 6 months ago or more of what ports we would like to see on new "100Gbps" routers. Like I have being saying this is all conjecture without a roadmap from Mikrotik.
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 23608
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:54 am

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
schadom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:47 am
Location: Austria

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:22 pm

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
Awesome! Please consider a new CCR with ARM, 12G-4S+ and redudant PSUs.
Would be ideal for smaller environments where you have fiber uplinks and access with copper.
 
paulct
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:38 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:20 pm

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
Good :) Looking forward to them.
 
User avatar
Steveocee
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:47 pm

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
That is extremely good news.
Steve "Steveocee" Carter
PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials
 
Miracle
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:04 am

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:27 pm

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
Please do some CCR with ARM or x86
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:01 pm

Tilera has had its day.
It is now Mellanox BlueField based on ARM.
 
kcdyer
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:29 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:34 am

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
Awesome! Please consider a new CCR with ARM, 12G-4S+ and redudant PSUs.
Would be ideal for smaller environments where you have fiber uplinks and access with copper.
I would also love this --^ ^-- 10-12G eth ports and 4sfp+'s would be AMAZING! With a quad core Arm or equivalent that can handle core functions like BGP properly!
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:44 am

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
Awesome! Please consider a new CCR with ARM, 12G-4S+ and redudant PSUs.
Would be ideal for smaller environments where you have fiber uplinks and access with copper.
I would also love this --^ ^-- 10-12G eth ports and 4sfp+'s would be AMAZING! With a quad core Arm or equivalent that can handle core functions like BGP properly!
BlueField goes up to 16 A72 cores. It has PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE/IB.

http://www.mellanox.com/related-docs/np ... ld_SoC.pdf
 
Paternot
Member
Member
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:01 am
Location: Niterói / Brazil

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:40 am

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
Awesome! Please consider a new CCR with ARM, 12G-4S+ and redudant PSUs.
Would be ideal for smaller environments where you have fiber uplinks and access with copper.
I would also love this --^ ^-- 10-12G eth ports and 4sfp+'s would be AMAZING! With a quad core Arm or equivalent that can handle core functions like BGP properly!
BlueField goes up to 16 A72 cores. It has PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE/IB.

http://www.mellanox.com/related-docs/np ... ld_SoC.pdf
That's cute. A fit replacement for the aging Tilera CPUs. We can only hope. :D
 
schadom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:47 am
Location: Austria

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:01 am

BlueField goes up to 16 A72 cores. It has PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE/IB.

http://www.mellanox.com/related-docs/np ... ld_SoC.pdf

That SoC indeed looks really nice.
 
User avatar
Hammy
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Topic Author
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: DeKalb, IL
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:32 pm

It seems more appropriate for storage systems.
-----
Mike Hammett

The Brothers WISP
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:32 pm

It seems more appropriate for storage systems.
Mellanox lists this new product line in the same category as Tile.
Last edited by vortex on Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:54 pm, 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 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:25 pm

Thanks for doing the testing MIke! I'm looking forward to putting a 4011 in our lab and benchmarking it against a hardware router.

I'm excited about where MikroTik is headed with more ARM based routers :-)
Global - MikroTik Support & Consulting - English | Francais | Español | Portuguese +1 855-645-7684
https://iparchitechs.com/services/mikro ... l-support/ mikrotiksupport@iparchitechs.com
 
User avatar
Hammy
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Topic Author
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: DeKalb, IL
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:13 pm

It seems more appropriate for storage systems.
Mellanox lists this new product line in the same category as Tile.
Are you sure?
Mellanox CPU differences.PNG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-----
Mike Hammett

The Brothers WISP
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:48 pm

It seems more appropriate for storage systems.
Mellanox lists this new product line in the same category as Tile.
Are you sure?

Mellanox CPU differences.PNG
They constitute the multicore CPU category in the navigation.

It does not mean there will not be other SoC's with more network interfaces, although I would not be surprised if Mellanox just expected OEMs to hang switch chips.
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1794
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:06 am

I hope it's a case of "once burned twice shy" with the choice of chipset for the CCR replacement. Tilera while technically very interesting turned out to be a bit of a lemon.

I want to see Mikrotik use the Cavium Octeon TX processors in their CCR replacement.

Cavium and Marvell are big supporters of OpenFastPath and OpenDataPlane making it easy to develop software that can make use of hardware offloads/TCAM's on platforms that support it, and kernel path on platforms that don't.
Marvell/Cavium have a full portfolio of SoC's to suit low end to high end routers. On top of this, they are ARM64 processors and have various accelerators specifically for crypto and packet forwarding.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
Steveocee
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:41 am

Have been saying for a long time there is room for a CCR with a quad core and the 4011 is close to making it (that rack mount though).

Almost like the CCR line went AMD mentality (more cores are better) than the Intel way of faster better cores.

Excited about this new generation of CCR
Steve "Steveocee" Carter
PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:59 am

Mellanox basically finished the EZchip design integrating their stuff, it is not obvious where they will take it going forward.

Tile-Mx was going to have A53. It seems 16 A72 would be equivalent to 40 A53.

Cavium was acquired by Marvell.

NXP also has a 16x A72 processor with PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE:

https://www.nxp.com/products/processors ... or:LX2160A
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:03 am

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
Awesome! Please consider a new CCR with ARM, 12G-4S+ and redudant PSUs.
Would be ideal for smaller environments where you have fiber uplinks and access with copper.
I would also love this --^ ^-- 10-12G eth ports and 4sfp+'s would be AMAZING! With a quad core Arm or equivalent that can handle core functions like BGP properly!
BlueField goes up to 16 A72 cores. It has PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE/IB.

http://www.mellanox.com/related-docs/np ... ld_SoC.pdf
surely 16cores A72, A73, A75 at 2.8ghz like snapdragon 845 will beat tilera 72 core at 1000mhz, and the benefits of better single thread performance will be huge
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:05 am

Mellanox basically finished the EZchip design integrating their stuff, it is not obvious where they will take it going forward.

Tile-Mx was going to have A53. It seems 16 A72 would be equivalent to 40 A53.

Cavium was acquired by Marvell.

NXP also has a 16x A72 processor with PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE:

https://www.nxp.com/products/processors ... or:LX2160A

better to go with A72 73 75 out of order cores (like A15 we see on rb4011/1100ahx4) to improve single threaded performance, at least at 2.8ghz

the experience is learned, it is easy to reach a point where it is useless to have a large number of light cores, it is better to have fewer cores but to be heavier
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:09 am

some body have tried overclocking the rb1100ahx4 or rb4011?
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:46 am

Mellanox basically finished the EZchip design integrating their stuff, it is not obvious where they will take it going forward.

Tile-Mx was going to have A53. It seems 16 A72 would be equivalent to 40 A53.

Cavium was acquired by Marvell.

NXP also has a 16x A72 processor with PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE:

https://www.nxp.com/products/processors ... or:LX2160A

better to go with A72 73 75 out of order cores (like A15 we see on rb4011/1100ahx4) to improve single threaded performance, at least at 2.8ghz

the experience is learned, it is easy to reach a point where it is useless to have a large number of light cores, it is better to have fewer cores but to be heavier
Note that Tile-Mx was supposed to start from the top with 100x A53 cores, which would be more powerful than 16x A72. Mellanox kept the 28nm to avoid a more major redesign.
 
ste
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:21 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:17 am

A 1100AHx4 with more memory and sfp+ interfaces would be great.
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:08 pm

Mellanox basically finished the EZchip design integrating their stuff, it is not obvious where they will take it going forward.

Tile-Mx was going to have A53. It seems 16 A72 would be equivalent to 40 A53.

Cavium was acquired by Marvell.

NXP also has a 16x A72 processor with PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE:

https://www.nxp.com/products/processors ... or:LX2160A

better to go with A72 73 75 out of order cores (like A15 we see on rb4011/1100ahx4) to improve single threaded performance, at least at 2.8ghz

the experience is learned, it is easy to reach a point where it is useless to have a large number of light cores, it is better to have fewer cores but to be heavier
Note that Tile-Mx was supposed to start from the top with 100x A53 cores, which would be more powerful than 16x A72. Mellanox kept the 28nm to avoid a more major redesign.
surely in some cases many ligth cores like A53 can be helpfull specially if runing at 1.8ghz vs tilegx 1.0 and 1.2 ghz, in any case the major advantage comes from clock

but is very frequent specially in ccr1072 (72 cores) getting limited by single core performance with a bunch of cores working while 30 or 40 cores are idling

because that is better to seek heavy cores

this topic examples that, rb4011 whit half the cores than the ccr1009 gives him a beating in single core performance, and i am confident in some other real world scenarios rb4011 can beat ccr1009

but why??

because rb4011 have A15 "heavy" cores, what do I mean with "heavy"? i mean an out-of-order superscalar pipeline core

ligth cores like tilera gx and A53 are superscalar, in-order execution pipeline cores

whats the difference?? in some cases 2.x the performance at the same clock

because that we need some A72,73,75 cores runing at 2.8 ghz to get almost 6.0x the tilera gx 1.0ghz single core performance or 3.0x the A53 at 1.8ghz single core performance

is not a trivial thing, we are talking between 3.0x to 6.0 x advantages

that explain the success of rb4011, a success that is just beginning
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:16 pm

A 1100AHx4 with more memory and sfp+ interfaces would be great.

yes that's the only way to make it a valid choice, paying 100us only for dual power-supply losing sfp+ and 512mb of nand does not make sense

rb1100ahx4 with 2gb of ram and spf+ and the same 512mb nand of 4011 at 300us will be nice to see and a valid proposal

like a 4011 but with a more serious envelope to support heavier implementations
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1794
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:17 am

Mellanox basically finished the EZchip design integrating their stuff, it is not obvious where they will take it going forward.

Tile-Mx was going to have A53. It seems 16 A72 would be equivalent to 40 A53.

Cavium was acquired by Marvell.

NXP also has a 16x A72 processor with PCIe 4.0 and 100GbE:

https://www.nxp.com/products/processors ... or:LX2160A
This is an interesting SOC, but they have limited software support (like Tilera) and also do not have as wide a portfolio of SOC's as Marvell.

With Marvell you could use the Armada 7040 with a few Mochi ethernet SB's and create an even better RB4011 type product (no switch chip), the 8040 for a faster RB1100AHx4 type product, or you could use the Cavium Octeon TX's for a CCR type product. All with the same code base...
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
vortex
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:10 pm

Now it seems there are two companies interested in buying Mellanox.

That would be the third increasinggly bigger gulp of TILE technology.
 
anuser
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: RB4011 vs. CCR1009 BGP

Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:01 pm

Yes, we are aware of this peculiarity and we are working also on new routers that have higher power per core, not just many cores.
The Tile GX series consists of several models with different amount of CPU cores. It would be great if the new router series would start with 80 Gigabit/s routing performance with the lowest model and going up to several 100 Gbit/s or even 1 Terabit/s for the top router.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests