Static queues are not suitable for at least one situation: when you have a number of bandwidth plans and you set the speed with "Mikrotik-Rate-Limit" radius attribute.I believe MT is working on this issue.
But there is always workaround - use static queues or queue tree. There are also several benefits to use static queues:
Probably you can find more.
We terminate up to 700-900 users on one PPPoE server, I suppose it is not possible to deal with static queues. It would be possible only if services will be the same for all users or there will be some other limitations.I believe MT is working on this issue.
But there is always workaround - use static queues or queue tree. There are also several benefits to use static queues:
*) few queues, instead of hundreds for each user
*) easy to manage
*) reduced CPU and memory usage.
Probably you can find more.
It will not help to resolve problem. We already tried.Use static queues to solve this problem is impossible. Queues are created dynamically by radius attribute.
Let´s cross our fingers and hope they find a solution as soon as possible.I have reply from MT support, they confirmed problem and they are working on solution.
Good news!it seems they found. I am testing 3.7 and it works much more better...
Ok, I think they will release it soon..MT sent me to check corrections.
3.7 beta works fine, as we can see for this short period of time:
Packets: Sent = 4546, Received = 4546, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 478ms, Average = 8ms
Before this I had 2%-5% loss on 200 packets.
This is great news!3.7 beta works fine, as we can see for this short period of time:
Packets: Sent = 4546, Received = 4546, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 478ms, Average = 8ms
Before this I had 2%-5% loss on 200 packets.
I have this same problem since version 2.9.50, so rollback didn´t solve my problem. But with older versions (2.9.4x) works fine.Hope that "7" will be lucky number I have same problem, but i rolled back to 2.9.51. I can't afford this to happen in my net.
Cheers
Michal
You see, this is what worries me for me packet losses stopped as soon as i rolled back to 2.9.51, OMG maybe i have different problemI have this same problem since version 2.9.50, so rollback didn´t solve my problem. But with older versions (2.9.4x) works fine.
Is there any way i could get as well that beta to test it?Don't wory, 3.7 seems to be really very good.
Running 24 hours, no problems yet.
Glad to hearDon't wory, 3.7 seems to be really very good.
Running 24 hours, no problems yet.
Don't wory, 3.7 seems to be really very good.
Running 24 hours, no problems yet.
Just to know have kind of little performance problem you have?We do not have any problems with 3.7 build time Mar/27/2008.
We run it 4 days on 4 PPPoE server with 500-800 active connections each.
We have only little performance problems that are common for older versions 2.9.x
Thanks for reply. At least for my case these are minor issues.1. when there are more users (700-900), we can see that sometimes ping to localhost is higher, up to 2-5ms, but not every ping, only 10-30%
2. we have problem that users are not able to get higher speeds than 15-20Mbit for download and 5-9Mbit for upload. But this is common problem with older 2.9.x versions and it is only one unpleasant feature of PPPoE compared to DHCP
Problem will be fixed in next build and at this point it looks like it will be
the last - so, please, wait for the release of 3.7
Yeah, tell that to my usersAt least one more problem was found with test build.Problem will be fixed in next build and at this point it looks like it will be
the last - so, please, wait for the release of 3.7
Are pppoe problems really fixed?pppoe fixes are included but i dont know why not described in changelog :>
Do you have experiences with freebsd/pppoe? Is it good solution? Why are you trying MT PPPoE?Currently 50-58mbit/s, 580 users (325 queues) - packet loss i still here
To RouterOS itself:
600 packets transmitted, 594 packets received, 1% packet loss
The absolutely same story via connected PPPoE:
Packets: Sent = 600, Received = 594, Lost = 6 (1% loss),
It's better than 2-5% loss in older versions, but our freebsd/pppoed server with 500 users online did not lose even 1 packet
We didn't face any problem in 3.7 PPPoEI think we should report to Mk support that we are not happy with this solution, or else they will believe it´s fine.
I cannot accept a new version that works worst than an old version. And loose packets in LAN enviroment make this solution useless.
No I think it’s the same.is the cpu sage little bit lower then the previous releases?
regards
Ros
For us since 3.4 it was already stable with multi-cpu=yes, but it´s not helping to enable the second core since I continue to have dropped packets.Any experience on multi-cpu=yes about 3.7?
is it stable the smp verision about pppoe server?
regards
Ros
Have you reported to Mk support you still have problem with it? We are trying to report to them but they insist it was solved (they really solved part of the problem). I know more people which continue to have this problem so I think everybody should report. Look like when you have a few more authenticantion request (even if all denied) it lose packets.Yes, we have exactly same situation.
me tooYes, we have exactly same situation.
Packet loss occurs on interfaces that doesn´t have any QoS or queues applied. We are not talking about packetloss for a user thru Mk route. It happens on 100Mbits or Gigabit interface with no QoS applied. It must not happen on a regular router, never! I use Mk as PPPoE server for years and it never happens before. Something is clearly wrong here.So you have a big QoS system and some little packet loss?
Bus as far as I know it is possible to limit traffic ONLY by dropping packets!!!
regarding the constant packet loss - did you really determined it?
if you say you have 3% packet loss thats mean you should have the same number with 1pps 10pps 100pps and 1000pps.
I just checked same of my routers (not only mikrotiks) with your unique method (ping 127.0.0.1) and almost in all I was able to see some pings missing.
So bottom line is - do you have real packet loss problem???? I know only one way how to determine it is - online gamers (Quake, Unreal tournament, Counter-Strike) - those guys will be first who will find out even the smallest disturbance in the network...
Ouch. Just for interest sake did you encounter any problems with 2.9.51? Is there a specific reason why you upgraded to 3.x?We are seeing all sorts of weird things.
The main reason for the move to v3 was to get the fix for queues not always being inforced and moving to v3 seemed to fix it. We are short on bandwidth right now waiting for our new circuits to be installed and not inforcing queues was a real issue. Everything actually seemed to work fine with v3 until something like 3.5 or somewhere in there. Not at all sure when, its hard to keep track. I heard starting with 3.5 Mikrotik has a new kernel. Not sure if thats true.Ouch. Just for interest sake did you encounter any problems with 2.9.51? Is there a specific reason why you upgraded to 3.x?
I use 2.9.x and 2.9.51 on various servers with PPPoE client on high sites. The largest site has about 100 PPPoE clients. I have never had any problems with queues.Anybody use 2.9.51 to PPPOE?
Wouldn't an up to date PPPoE radius how too in the wiki be nice. Needs to cover IP pools, duplicate rejection, profiles and etc.for so many clients, I hope you are using RADIUS authentication ...
Is it a multi-cpu box or an old fashion single core?We have some packetloss with version 3.7 and Intel Gigabit NIC. I don´t know if with Broadcom is worst but we have this problem with Intel (PCI or PCI-E).
It´s a P4 3.4Ghz dual-core with intel server mobo.Is it a multi-cpu box or an old fashion single core?We have some packetloss with version 3.7 and Intel Gigabit NIC. I don´t know if with Broadcom is worst but we have this problem with Intel (PCI or PCI-E).
Regards
Ros
Sorry about my bad english but what´s a snm?uldis......
i think the actual packet loss is about an snm issue!!!!
this report from josefranco seems confirming my idea.
Regards
Ros
In this case I don´t think it´s related to multi-core cpu. I had this problem with single core CPU too.it means multi core cpu.
Regards
Ros