This seems first time Mikrotik uses ARM cpu, will be packages for other boards based on ARM cpu? (like x86 package).
And other interesting thing is Power, it is written that it is 2x more powerfull than rb2011, but this is too little for that specs (dualcore cpu, 2 times higher frequency than rb2011). So why just only 2 times more powerfull?

I really hope that is 4x more powerfull than rb2011 as the cpu speed sugest

Performance is not only a matter of clock speed. Actually, it is much, much more than that! Until now, the processors used in MT devices were more like ASICs. ARM is a general-purpose platform, which may not be as efficient in networking-related jobs, but can still perform them adequately and it is much more flexible than highly-specialized chips.

I would guess that this turn (which was rejected by Normis a few months ago but is certainly welcome!) was dictated by cost factors, the vast availability of code for ARM and possibly the future Mikrotik wants for Metarouter.

Kudos to Mikrotik for the choice! Quad core ARM boards would be even nicer, now that RouterOS is largely multithreaded. But we are just in the beginning...

[...] will be packages for other boards based on ARM cpu? (like x86 package).

I very much doubt that they will. MikroTik's modus operandi when it comes to different CPU architectures has always been that they license software for generic x86 hardware (probably, at this point, more for historical reasons than anything else; I would be sad but not shocked if, at some point in the future, MikroTik discontinues the practice of licensing RouterOS separately from a hardware sale), but for all other architectures, it only runs on hardware that they make that uses that instruction set. As cool as it would be if they did so, as far as I can tell, MikroTik has no real incentive to try to make RouterOS for ARM run on "generic ARM hardware" since, really, there is no such thing. This means that if they did try to support ARM-based systems that other companies build, they would have to pick and choose which specific boards to support, and they would be spending huge quantities of time and resources to ensure that RouterOS runs on somebody else's board flawlessly even though they have no assurance that they will sell a lot of copies to people who use those boards.

I would guess that this turn (which was rejected by Normis a few months ago but is certainly welcome!) was dictated by cost factors, the vast availability of code for ARM...

I would also guess that in conjunction with your guess about cost factors (and, perhaps more accurately, cost-to-performance ratio factors...I would not be shocked if, at this point, given the fact that ARM is very heavily used in mobile handsets, and that there has been something of an arms race when it comes to mobile CPU performance over the last few years as that market has developed, if an SoC based around ARM that cost about the same as a similarly-spec'd SoC based around MIPS outperforms the MIPS chip), part of this has to do with MikroTik's good (?) relationship with Atheros (which, at this point, is the only 802.11 chipset family that RouterOS supports; MikroTik is in trouble if Atheros ever goes bye-bye), which at this point, as we all know, is owned by Qualcomm. All of the MIPS CPUs that MikroTik has been using since the RB1xx and RB5xx series were discontinued have been built by Atheros, but Qualcomm already had the ARM-based Snapdragon CPU line before the Atheros acquisition. Since MikroTik already gets their wireless chips from Qualcomm, it would not surprise me to learn that there is a Snapdragon CPU under the hood of the RB3011. I think it is also possible (though I readily admit I am just spitballing here) that Qualcomm may be starting to question why they are bothering to build both MIPS and ARM based SoCs when they could be making life simpler for themselves by standardizing on a single architecture across-the-board. MIPS-based Qualcomm SoCs may not be long for this world.

-- Nathan

This means that if they did try to support ARM-based systems that other companies build, they would have to pick and choose which specific boards to support...

Except if... they actually decide to do that. I wonder, what if their ARM boards are not entirely custom-made, but based on some popular prototype with some additions?

ARM cpus are the future, have very fast development, power growth per year. They are made in quantities, so the price of made is low....

Now if we could get a routerboard based on AppliedMicro X-Gene ARMv8-A architecture. 4x 10Gb SFP+, 2-4 1Gbe interfaces, large amount of memory and 8-16 2.4GHz cores.

That would be the stuff!

Except if... they actually decide to do that. I wonder, what if their ARM boards are not entirely custom-made, but based on some popular prototype with some additions?

There is no way that this is the case. Why would MikroTik suddenly subcontract the hardware design to somebody else when they have been making their own custom boards now for years? They have the staff and the expertise, so there is almost no reason for them not to use it. (Also, just look at the case design of the RB3011. Clearly it is in the exact same shape and has the same port layouts as an RB2011. That is only possible if they designed the RB3011 board.)

An ARM-based RouterBoard is also going to be using a port of RouterBOOT, guaranteed, and RouterBOOT does things a little differently than most other widely-used embedded bootloaders out there. RouterOS on platforms other than x86 is pretty closely tied to RouterBOOT, and RouterBOOT probably wouldn't take kindly to being flashed to some random hardware that it was never designed to run on or recognize.

-- Nathan

I for one would really like to see a 64-bit version of Router OS running on Intel CPUs (and VMware ESXi and AMD and on future Mikrotik products).

This is where the CPU market is rapidly expanding with low cost options and hi-end systems).

Wouldn't it be great to have a Mikrotik multi-threaded 64-bit operating system supporting 256 Gig running full BGP tables - and OSPF and sitting at 3 percent CPU load with many many 10-gig interfaces supported with hundreds of vlans.

Wouldn't it be great to see Mikrotik jump onto the virtual VMware bandwagon also and be known as the high-end router solution over a virtual or physical Cisco router solution.

I just don't think there would be much work to do to support this environment and come out as the best solution for everybody everywhere.

Now if we could get a routerboard based on AppliedMicro X-Gene ARMv8-A architecture. 4x 10Gb SFP+, 2-4 1Gbe interfaces, large amount of memory and 8-16 2.4GHz cores.

That would be the stuff!

unlikely thats suits for routers, yet, even with 14nm wafers produced SoC.
both A72(the only ARMv8A-based design, anounced, yet) and pervious A57 and A53 really hungry/hot.
but A53 cores was probably good start. relatively cold and relatively fast.
there was several multi-core and many-core(up to 64x in really mass-produced. all more ambitious ARM-devoted companies/design labs, shutdown, sadly) ARMv8 and ARMv8A -based chips, but they are REALLY hugry to use in networking.
as for smaller devices, with up to four cores - its could be decent entry for both SOHO and SMB market. bigger chips - bigger compelxity of design, especially in terms of heat dissipation and PSU/power circuitrty performance/reliability.
both Marvell and especially Qualcomm had quite Nice ARM-based SoC for networking(especially like Krait chips). more beefier are more suitable for dedicated IPS or storage/NAS, rather than generic router/CPE.


p.s.
for that price i was probably purchase one rb3011 "just from curiosity". seriously.
but maybe its fit my home or work too(permanently). like bunch 450g's, 751's, 951's 2011 did(&did good work) before.
thats would be long-awaited 2011 replacement. and 450g/850gx2 replacement of same platform/approach may get quad-core version of same chip. for extra $50-$80(with "extras" like 2x RAM and SD slot) in price or something alike in similar enclosure as 2011/3011 or 450/850 used before.


p.p.s.
about ROS over 64-bit x86 - more likely adoption of K12 chips from AMD(both full-scale APU's and ULV chips follow later). originally they use improved A57 cores, but follow-up WILL use A72 and promised to be very cold and quiet.

Now if we could get a routerboard based on AppliedMicro X-Gene ARMv8-A architecture. 4x 10Gb SFP+, 2-4 1Gbe interfaces, large amount of memory and 8-16 2.4GHz cores.

That would be the stuff!

unlikely thats suits for routers, yet, even with 14nm wafers produced SoC.
both A72(the only ARMv8A-based design, anounced, yet) and pervious A57 and A53 really hungry/hot.
but A53 cores was probably good start. relatively cold and relatively fast.
there was several multi-core and many-core(up to 64x in really mass-produced. all more ambitious ARM-devoted companies/design labs, shutdown, sadly) ARMv8 and ARMv8A -based chips, but they are REALLY hugry to use in networking.
as for smaller devices, with up to four cores - its could be decent entry for both SOHO and SMB market. bigger chips - bigger compelxity of design, especially in terms of heat dissipation and PSU/power circuitrty performance/reliability.
both Marvell and especially Qualcomm had quite Nice ARM-based SoC for networking(especially like Krait chips). more beefier are more suitable for dedicated IPS or storage/NAS, rather than generic router/CPE.


p.s.
for that price i was probably purchase one rb3011 "just from curiosity". seriously.
but maybe its fit my home or work too(permanently). like bunch 450g's, 751's, 951's 2011 did(&did good work) before.
thats would be long-awaited 2011 replacement. and 450g/850gx2 replacement of same platform/approach may get quad-core version of same chip. for extra $50-$80(with "extras" like 2x RAM and SD slot) in price or something alike in similar enclosure as 2011/3011 or 450/850 used before.


p.p.s.
about ROS over 64-bit x86 - more likely adoption of K12 chips from AMD(both full-scale APU's and ULV chips follow later). originally they use improved A57 cores, but follow-up WILL use A72 and promised to be very cold and quiet.

Re: about ROS over 64-bit x86
Here is a big reason I would like to see "ROS over 64-bit x86" with vmxnet3 support:
#1 - a virtual "ROS over 32-bit x86" running MvWare ESXi using "e1000e" network interfaces - performing a bandwidth speed test to 127.0.0.1 = 14.6 Gbps
#2 - a virtual "ROS over 32-bit x86" running MvWare ESXi using "e1000e" network interfaces - performing a bandwidth speed test to a second "ROS over 32-bit x86" on a second VMware ESXi server with a 10-Gig Cisco switch in the middle = 9.7 Gbps

I would assume these speeds would only just get faster with 64-Bit ROS with vmxnet3 network driver support - and larger memory support for full IPV4 and IPV6 BGP tables.

In a virtual router server world, things will only get faster at time goes by.

North Idaho Tom Jones

no, you needs/purposes was clear, quite common among ROS x86 users, but there was conflict of interests and major purpose of ROS - sell it with hardware. so hardly we're see x86 improvements soon, if at all.
while x86-compatible ARM drop-in replacements(like announced by AMD) mayd had more interesting future, sharing same ROS images/package due to same arch both in devices and in standalone/custom installations.

p.s.
maybe im wrong. but my impressions thats x86 wasn't priority market for MikroTik team.

re: maybe im wrong. but my impressions thats x86 wasn't priority market for MikroTik team.

I totally think you are correct - however it is still a huge market where profits could be made by Mikrotik with a router solution for the VMware ESXi platform. Even Cisco is already on the band-wagon - but Cisco is way expensive for any decent x86 32-bit or 64-bit virtual environment.

Also - I would kinda like to see Intel/AMD 64 bit multi-core CPUs with large amounts of ram/cache be considered for new high-end Mikrotik CCR products. There is a lot of cool new developments as newer very high-end CPUs come out every year from both AMD and Intel. - And there is a huge source of existing GPL code and compilers and programmers already available. Also - I think that for flat-out processing the Intel/AMD world is far faster than the ARM processing world - however you pay a price in Watts.

Let's not forget the low power processors, e.g. Intel Xeon E3-1220L v2 - TDP 17W, 2 cores, 2.3 GHz up to 3.5 GHz, and others up to 35W, including eight core Atoms like the C2758 (4 integrated 2.5Gbps Ethernet, 20W, 2.4 Ghz), which all support 64-bit and could make a decent router with a decent power consumption.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/71 ... unications

Let's not forget the low power processors, e.g. Intel Xeon E3-1220L v2 - TDP 17W, 2 cores, 2.3 GHz up to 3.5 GHz, and others up to 35W, including eight core Atoms like the C2758 (4 integrated 2.5Gbps Ethernet, 20W, 2.4 Ghz), which all support 64-bit and could make a decent router with a decent power consumption.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/71 ... unications

Agree
What I am also thinking is, if we want high-throughput performance then power consumption is second. If we want energy conservation, then performance is second. Where CCRs are used, I would think that performance/throughput is the highest priority to achieve first.

North Idaho Tom Jones

maybe.
when SDN and OpenFlow become mature(about 1.5-2 years or so ? MikroTik move portions/all feats of ROS over it, instead of "bare metall", kernel-based version and drop deprecated implementation of feats, w/o affecting b/w compatibility.
as for x86 "in general" - future ULV chips(esp Skylake and Carrizo) with 6W-18W TDP will obliterate MIPS/ARM/PPC chips with same termal package about 5x times and being multicore(and generally SMT too. while AMD rumored to had 4x threads/per core instead of 2x as intel does), but generally SDH boxes(universal/open or proprietary, OpenFlow/alikes-incompatible)presently VERY pricy/expensive. major concern was - relable SoC/CPU supply, cuz only two vendors mean you VERY vulnerable(VIA IP future still unclear), while MIPS/ARM/PPC chips available from nearly hungred of suppliers, many of which had own factories, even small/outdated/archaic.
second was price. and presently major, cuz x86 CPU's remain very expensive.
so some consumers may build x86 gear for ROS, but MikroTik itself unlikely enter such market soon, or contribute much to x86 fork/branch of ROS polishing/fixing/improving.
thats why we're lack 64-bit version of ROS and etc.

maybe.
when SDH and OpenFlow become mature(about 1.5-2 years or so ? MikroTik move portions/all feats of ROS over it, and drop deprecated implementation of feats, w/o affecting b/w compatibility.
as for x86 "in general" - future ULV chips(esp Skylake and Carrizo) with 6W-18W TDP will obliterate MIPS/ARM/PPC chips with same termal package about 5x times and being multicore(and generally SMT too. while AMD rumored to had 4x threads/per core instead of 2x as intel does), but generally SDH boxes(universal/open or proprietary, OpenFlow/alikes-incompatible)presently VERY pricy/expensive. major concern was - relable SoC/CPU supply, cuz only two vendors mean you VERY vulnerable(VIA IP future still unclear), while MIPS/ARM/PPC chips available from nearly hungred of suppliers, many of which had own factories, even small/outdated/archaic.
second was price. and presently major, cuz x86 CPU's remain very expensive.
so some consumers may build x86 gear for ROS, but MikroTik itself unlikely enter such market soon, or contribute much to x86 fork/branch of ROS polishing/fixing/improving.
thats why we're lack 64-bit version of ROS and etc.

A question - I am not a programmer however I will ask: With x86 source code, are there re-writes of code to compile into a 64-bit ROS (so that more RAM memory could be allocated or gain additional CPU throughput) ?

Another question - is it difficult to compile for a different type of CPU. Lets say somebody comes out with a new super-fast 20 GHz 128-core 128-bit CPU but the instruction set is different. I would assume that first a compiler would be needed for the new CPU.

Just wondering ...

its ain't that simple, sadly.
and arch-specific things differ between x86 and 64-bit(AMD64/IMT64 arch) Seriously.
and properly-done kernels/firmware imply Many time spend in both testing, debugging, profiling.
its not "difficult"/impossible, but @#% of work if you do it Right.
some linux distros made/tuned/designed Especially toward this, mastering "consistency by design", especially Gentoo and forks by rolling/devloping clean toolchain-based systems..
few config changes(global and local(in rare cases) ones), then you just re-build AnyThing for different arch(chrot or in VM) or with Different optimisation/priorities. generally, aside access to bigger RAM amounts there was fast IO and integer and FP computing speed beenfits, potentially on properly-profiled 64-bit x86 code(benefits on intel chips slihtly smaller, yet).

When it will be available?
RB3011 - when?

@normis: Any news about 3011 availability date? Q2 is ending in a few days and there's still silent about release

its ain't that simple, sadly.
and arch-specific things differ between x86 and 64-bit(AMD64/IMT64 arch) Seriously.

You are right but conversion's dark time is far far away behind us....64-bit is quite common and Linux kernel is more than ready to forget 32-bit times.
Conversion from 64 to 128 bits is not easy as it was for 32 to 64 bit process but conversion between different ARM/X32/x64 and big and little endian is not a problem...it is already done.
ARM is already Linux's Tier 1 architecture and we should do not expect problems in recompiling to new architecture if only MT code is properly written.

MikroTik Team - could You answer - WHEN? When will be available RB3011 ???

We encountered a setback during final testing, so there was a delay, we have solved the issue, and device is moving to manufacturing.

The process of developing a device is long, it involves lots of prototypes, samples, etc. Sometimes there is a small issue and the whole chain of events is affected.

When we announce a product, we only give a rough estimate when it will become available. Sometimes there is a shift in the development process and the date moves. I can't say exactly when it will be available, because there are many variables that can still change.

Normis, month after Your answer - I'm asking again - WHEN ?
When will be available RB3011 ?

I've lost my patience. I've bought new 850gx2H.

As I also have some projects coming up, I wonder if Mikrotik/Normis could give some rough estimate when the 3011 and hAP ac will become available?

Allthough I understand that you can't give us an exact date, it should be possible to give us a 'within 1, 2 or 3 months' date range. E.g. if you already know now that it will not be within 2 months I can move on with my projects and look for other devices, it would be very much appreciated!

which is or will be faster? the new rb850gx2 or the rb3011 ?

As I also have some projects coming up, I wonder if Mikrotik/Normis could give some rough estimate when the 3011 and hAP ac will become available?

A small follow up for fellow anxious waiters; we gave Mikrotik a call and on the phone they said both devices should be available end of Q3 / last week of September.

resellers withdraw/cancelled preorders in both companies i preorder. perhaps there was probles with production or availability of RB3011. they said "had no idea when/if it will b available"

which is or will be faster? the new rb850gx2 or the rb3011 ?

go figure - dualcore 1.2Ghz ARM even in crippled A9(?) core with tiny caches/bus/IMC/FPU seriously outperform low-power 32-bit E550(?) PPC SoC from FreeScale.
Qualcomm/Atheros also had better SDK than Freescale and Broadcom, IMO.
if RB850gx was based on 64-bit PPC cores From freescale it would be more fun. have it 2x 1.2 E5500 or E6500 cores(these usually start from 8x ;P)it may be really challenging for RB3011.


p.s.
personally i would like something more like 951 version on this chip for home.
no LCD screen. no 8 ports(5x more than enough). no USB port, no SFP cage, no external antenna. more compact case(951 and 750/751 form-factor was okay)
and similar version without WiFi whatsoever to replace/Augment hEX.

and RB850Gx2 and RB2011 will be replaced by slighly OC'ed to 1.6Ghz(?)version of chip with HUGE heatsink. or quad-core version of it.

Myself - I would love to see a a new bread of screaming high-throughput Mikrotiks using the latest/fastest/lots-of-CPU-cache Intel 64-bit processors available.

Even using ROS x86 (32-bit) in a VMware environment, I am able to get Mikrotik UDP speed tests using 127.0.0.1 over 17 gig. And between two different VMware boxes with 10-Gig links with each hosting a ROS x86 (32-bit) in a VMware environment, I am still able to get a Mikrotik speedtest of of almost 10 gig (ROS to ROS through the network).

I also suspect that running the same tests without using Hypervisors (VMware), the results would only be faster.

I would like to ask, what is the fastest any RB has achieved with a Mikrotik speedtest to 127.0.0.1 ?

I would very much like to see a high-end Mikrotik with the power to take on a full-sized Cisco router and possibly out-perform a Cisco.

my 2 cents
North Idaho Tom Jones

Myself - I would love to see a a new bread of screaming high-throughput Mikrotiks using the latest/fastest/lots-of-CPU-cache Intel 64-bit processors available.

Even using ROS x86 (32-bit) in a VMware environment, I am able to get Mikrotik UDP speed tests using 127.0.0.1 over 17 gig. And between two different VMware boxes with 10-Gig links with each hosting a ROS x86 (32-bit) in a VMware environment, I am still able to get a Mikrotik speedtest of of almost 10 gig (ROS to ROS through the network).

I also suspect that running the same tests without using Hypervisors (VMware), the results would only be faster.

I would like to ask, what is the fastest any RB has achieved with a Mikrotik speedtest to 127.0.0.1 ?

I would very much like to see a high-end Mikrotik with the power to take on a full-sized Cisco router and possibly out-perform a Cisco.

my 2 cents
North Idaho Tom Jones

these SDN boxes already made in last 3years. still Very expensive, quirky and lot of prorietary stuff, despite being based on FOSS SDN solutions.
both x86-based and Arm/MIPS/PPC-based.
personally i would prefer new AMD low-power x86 SoC for that purpose, than intel things.
cuz low-power chips from AMD seriously faster and colder, yet.
as for high-performance setups, its will be b-necked by chipsets and CPU interface with it. and already do even in desktop applications.
well you may notice(including links in my post above)new tilera chip(ARM based 100-core many-core SoC , which eventually would be used in top-dog CCR devices.
as for future version - it would be based on A72-based(instead of A53)cores, maybe and had faster(optical)fabric/interconnect(essential for both many-core and multicore(starting from ~3x cores or so)chips).
so far in "networking" applications - ARM beat intel. so many-core and multi-core A57, A53 and A72-based SoC will had OUTSTANDING power/speed/footprint/price ration compared to such. and if you go for "monster-load" applications/use - stick to Tilera. software/ROS not scale enough(no ZOL things/approach used from Tilera, yet and nothing was Erlang-rewritten, yet too), but its about time.

re: personally i would prefer new AMD low-power x86 SoC for that purpose, than intel things.

Sometimes and often, there is a trade-off in speed to achieve a lower power consumption.

I would rather see a build it to run the absolute fastest, then have an optional ROS package that can be enabled to support Advanced-Power-Management.

Also - AMD vs Intel 64-bit processors. I would suggest going with the fastest CPU & highest throughput CPU (for ROS) no matter which company makes it (AMD or Intel).

Also, with a (very bad ass) 64-Bit ROS (Intel/AMD) environment, Mikrotik could also capture a huge growing Virtual Hypervisor market share at the same time. Has anybody looked at the price of a Cisco router/firewall platform that runs in a HyperVisor environment? This is way to big of a market to simply ignore. When ever possible, I use HyperVisor environments for my routers and firewalls. All of my Mikrotiks are only doing WDS or AP or customer NAT functions, and I only use my Cisco routers/switches because they support lots of 10-gig interfaces.

North Idaho Tom Jones

it seems that you have not seen CHR yet

it seems that you have not seen CHR yet

I know almost nothing about the CHR. What is the difference between CHR and x-86 ROS?

as for "fastest and baddest" any kind of x86 sucks compared to things like Power8 or Sparc T5 and alikes.
including E5, E7 and EP chips.

it seems that you have not seen CHR yet

I know almost nothing about the CHR. What is the difference between CHR and x-86 ROS?

CHR is Cloud Hosted Router, a special IMG file for virtual machines. Improvements over regular x86 from ISO file:

- free (no license) with all features
- supports hyper-v and all the drivers for various environments
- 64bit

Currently runs at 1Mbit per interface, because we will have a subscription service for around 1-2$ per month to remove this limit. There are no other limits for now (like a Level6 license).

More info:
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=98981
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=99658

wow !
sounds like cool offer/product :=)
there isn't plans to port appliance to EMC/VMWare, VirtualBox/HyperBox, Parallels contaniers/format and community-made/support FOSS platforms ?
qemu atleast ? kvm-based products ?

Will we be able to buy a 5GHz version already assembled?

personally i was more curious by "-ln" low-end version and "-rm" rack-mount versions of device
but all resellers refuse to take pre-orders. some even to my surprise - unaware about such device existence/announcement (
(send them brochure and newsletter. they seems really interested)

wow !
sounds like cool offer/product :=)
there isn't plans to port appliance to EMC/VMWare, VirtualBox/HyperBox, Parallels contaniers/format and community-made/support FOSS platforms ?
qemu atleast ? kvm-based products ?

CHR is already available for all of the above. It is an image that you can convert to any of the mentioned formats, and run CHR in KVM, Quemy etc. See the forum links I posted, there are instructions

Now that I got rid of the bridge on my RB2011 I think I will pass and remain ac-less.

Upgrade triggers:

- gigabit WAN next year
- 10GBaseT wirespeed ports
- triple band wireless plus HFS+ plus AFP
- PoE out plus built-in power supply

- triple band wireless plus HFS+ plus AFP

Forget about it. HFS+ and AFP are proprietary technologies made by Apple and not licensed to anyone.
Also keep in mind it's a ROUTER - performance for file sharing will be horrible anyway.

- triple band wireless plus HFS+ plus AFP

Forget about it. HFS+ and AFP are proprietary technologies made by Apple and not licensed to anyone.
Also keep in mind it's a ROUTER - performance for file sharing will be horrible anyway.

There are commercial HFS+ drivers for Windows since many years ago, for example.

There are many third-party products supporting AFP.

Performance would still be much better than the horrible Airport Extreme.

HFS+ support in all Windows (and Linux) products came from reverse engineering. The best one from Paragon added journal replay which works only sometimes.
Speaking in terms of AFP all Linux products out there uses Netatalk implementation which is not as perfect as you may think. I'm running it for 3 years now, updated from sources every time it's get updated - it works but it's stability is discussable.
Speaking in terms of performance transferring at ~120Mb/s uses around 80% of one of two cpu cores on my home NAS which is x86 and have drives connected via SATA. Using USB drives will require more power.

Network storage is rather complicated area. If you don't believe me look at commercial NAS solutions (keep in mind I'm not talking about pro-grade SANs) - every unit with decent speeds will run x86. I replaced my NAS with custom one because of two reasons: I had few ARM storages and they just sucks plus custom x86 was cheaper.


So yeah, I think router CPU is not going to handle network storage well - I did seen many with such functionality, none of them were near good. If you're complaining about AEx speeds look how beefy ARM it's holding - it's 1Ghz + 512MB ram

Now that I got rid of the bridge on my RB2011 I think I will pass and remain ac-less.

Upgrade triggers:

- gigabit WAN next year
- 10GBaseT wirespeed ports
- triple band wireless plus HFS+ plus AFP
- PoE out plus built-in power supply

for 10Gb ports im afraid even top CCR aren't powerful enough, mostly because ROS didn't scale much between many-cores, yet.
(unless you willing to sacrifice/"dumbify" config for speed, making its essentially "smart switch" for lan ports,which isn't good idea for ANY router)
HFS+ and AFP not matter.
its like GOPHER in 2015 year. or http 0.9.
but 802.11ax would be cool, but such wireless chipsets isn't come out yet and generally 60GHz support was quite rare at all

CCR does not have a 10GbE switch, everything goes through the CPU.

It is possible to have something cheaper which is not suboptimal in this regard.

CCR does not have a 10GbE switch, everything goes through the CPU.

It is possible to have something cheaper which is not suboptimal in this regard.

its meant "USE/configure as smart switch" ie with sacrificed/crippled/reduced config.
and no, CCR1009 do use switch chip. (and its ironically aged 8327 chip. even my hEX had 8337 as interface/PHY. which way, WAY better)
http://i.mt.lv/routerboard/files/CCR100 ... 151432.pdf
"something" is always possible. question only if/who/when will do that.

And so, distracted by technicalities, everyone seems to have forgotten that RB3011 should have been available for a month already, which isn't. So I'm wondering, is there something really wrong with the new to be product and should I go and buy something else?

I have learnt that it is normal when mikrotik doesn't fulfill it's timing given in announcements. Nothing special. Just take it as it is. The official answer was once to me: "It will be when it will be."

Has the RB3011 IPSec hardware acceleration?

I am looking for a cheap device that could handle 500mbps IPSec.

Regards.

Has the RB3011 IPSec hardware acceleration?

I am looking for a cheap device that could handle 500mbps IPSec.

Regards.

Yes, it has the hardware, but no it's not yet working - they haven't gotten the drivers for it integrated into RouterOS yet. I presume that will be something that happens in ROSv7.... whenever that might be. (It's like sasquatch - there have been a few blurry pictures of it, but nothing concrete).

Yes, it has the hardware, but no it's not yet working - they haven't gotten the drivers for it integrated into RouterOS yet. I presume that will be something that happens in ROSv7.... whenever that might be. (It's like sasquatch - there have been a few blurry pictures of it, but nothing concrete).

Thanks ZeroByte!
Any developer could tell something about it? I hope IPSec acceletarion could work soon.
Kind regards.

I hope IPSec acceletarion could work soon.

I wouldn't rely on that. It was promised, but I don't believe it'll happen soon.

I hope IPSec acceletarion could work soon.

I wouldn't rely on that. It was promised, but I don't believe it'll happen soon.

Does anyone perhaps have any numbers (or could run a quick benchmark) on what it can handle in terms of unaccelerated IPsec/AES? If the RB2011 could hit around ~40mbps, it shouldn't be a stretch for the significantly faster processor in the RB3011 to get close to 100mbps at least?

RB3011 without acceleration can get around 150Mbps UDP traffic with 1400 byte packets.

RB3011 without acceleration can get around 150Mbps UDP traffic with 1400 byte packets.

Thank you for the informative reply mrz.
That is quite impressive for software crypto.
Hopefully we one day see hardware crypto on ARM.

RB3011 without acceleration can get around 150Mbps UDP traffic with 1400 byte packets.

Thank you for the informative reply mrz.
That is quite impressive for software crypto.
Hopefully we one day see hardware crypto on ARM.

i think hardware - advance faster than sofware implmentation for "advertised as hardware implementation" offloading of some portions of it.
A35, A32 cores, and even proposed mid tier A53 replacement (A72 Already get A73 to switch to and A32/A35 replace weaker ones)
and 1004k and his new, improved successor - make even MIPS-BE look not so bleak, perhaps.
in any/each case - cost and time of design/development was anyway remain significant to be problem. thats one of major reasons why ARM - outperform MIPS, PPC and x86 - they had notably quicker "time to market" performance, despite sometimes idential launch time for similar ideas in.

I think it is time for a line in this routing class but cheaper.

Many people still don't get 1000/100 and it would be enough if the router would be able to support a 2000/200 upgrade later.