Last week I bought a Cloud Router Switch CRS226-24G-2S+ to replace two small Cisco switches (SG-200) and my RB493G (which was running absolutely fine and trouble free over the last 4 years), because we have needed more ports and I thought it is nice to have only one device left.

After configuring the new device I did some performance tests.

The switching performance of the new CRS226-24G-2S+ is absolutely fine (indeed wire speed between all ports), but if I take one port out of the switch group and use it for routing, the routing performance is very disappointing (pls. see the figures below), even keeping in mind that this device is mainly a switch.

Thinking about that, this group of devices (Cloud Router Switch) shouldn’t be advertised as “Perfect SOHO gateway router, switch...all in one box, Ethernet, Fiber, or 4G (with optional USB modem) gateway connection to Internet” and also the naming is a little bit misleading.

And there is another confusing thing: On the bill and on the router package itself the unit is stated as: “Cloud Router Switch CRS226-24G-2S-IN with Atheros AR9344 CPU, 128MB RAM). Accordingly to the specification it should have the QCA8519 CPU and only 64MB (which is shown in ROS). Is this only a printing mistake or are there indeed different configurations available?

On the other hand, if the CRS226-24G-2S-IN has the AR9344 CPU (which is similar to the RB2011) then I don’t understand the low routing performance (which should be at least similar to the RB2011 or to my old RB493G). This poor performance was also mentioned within another thread for the device CRS125-24G-1S-RM (http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82422). Will any ROS update improve the performance in the future?

For now I will use the new CRS226-24G-2S-IN as a pure switch and continue using my old RB493G as a pure router and think about buying a CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+ in addition (which I tried to avoid) or wait for the new RB/850G RB850Gx2.

RB493G
version: 6.12
build-time: Apr/14/2014 09:27:45
free-memory: 234.5MiB
total-memory: 256.0MiB
cpu: MIPS 24Kc V7.4
cpu-count: 1
cpu-frequency: 680MHz
cpu-load: 1%
architecture-name: mipsbe
board-name: RB493G
platform: MikroTik

Downstream: 120Mbps (my ISP line speed)
Upstream: 12Mbps
NAT rules: 26
IP filter rules: 28


CRS226-24G-2S+
version: 6.12
build-time: Apr/14/2014 09:27:45
free-memory: 40.3MiB
total-memory: 64.0MiB
cpu: MIPS 24Kc V8.5
cpu-count: 1
cpu-frequency: 400MHz
cpu-load: 100%
architecture-name: mipsbe
board-name: CRS226-24G-2S+
platform: MikroTik

Downstream: 40Mbps
Upstream: 12Mbps
NAT rules: 1
IP filter rules: 0

CRS226-24G-2S+
version: 6.12
build-time: Apr/14/2014 09:27:45
free-memory: 40.3MiB
total-memory: 64.0MiB
cpu: MIPS 24Kc V8.5
cpu-count: 1
cpu-frequency: 400MHz
cpu-load: 100%
architecture-name: mipsbe
board-name: CRS226-24G-2S+
platform: MikroTik

Downstream: 40Mbps
Upstream: 12Mbps
NAT rules: 1
IP filter rules: 0

Do You have any updates on this poor performance routing issues on CRS226-24G-2S+?

Thanks.

Vedran

CRS226-24G-2S+
version: 6.12

Have you tried 6.15? http://www.mikrotik.com/download
Maybe it improve your routing speed, but not forget CRS have only 400Mhz CPU and rb493G have 680Mhz

CRS226-24G-2S+
version: 6.12

Have you tried 6.15? http://www.mikrotik.com/download
Maybe it improve your routing speed, but not forget CRS have only 400Mhz CPU and rb493G have 680Mhz

Hi,

I was planning to buy couple of this, but after checking performance reviews this puzzled me a little.
This device has 2 x 10 Gigabit SFP+ interfaces and can only achieve:

Downstream: 40 Mbps
Upstream: 12 Mbps

Isn't something wrong here, very wrong?

Thanks.

Vedran

The CRS series was not intended for high speed routing.
It is a L3 SWITCH with minimal low speed routing capabilities as a side effect for having ROS for administration purposes on it.
So one can do ACLs and maybe some tunneled access to the CLI/UI, nothing more.

And regarding the use as a SOHO router: most ppl. don't have 10G fiber at home, not even 1G.
And for a crappy DSL line, it does its job.
If one needs gigabit speeds and really wants Mikrotik, than she/he should get a real router, at least a RB1100.
In SOHO environments, a gigabit home class router with hardware NAT and a dumb gigabit switch will do a far better job than a CRS on its own.

Isn't something wrong here, very wrong?

Yes. You selected the wrong device.

This is mainly a switch. have witching performance, not Routing - But. there is something in Your setop/software make cpu goes to100%. It should not in low speed like this. What does a /tool profile say about cpu usage? I doubt its Routing. (as long as its simple Routing, and not a bounch of Routing filter etc)

This is mainly a switch. have witching performance, not Routing - But. there is something in Your setop/software make cpu goes to100%. It should not in low speed like this. What does a /tool profile say about cpu usage? I doubt its Routing. (as long as its simple Routing, and not a bounch of Routing filter etc)

Would be cool to see a MikroTik Switch like this, sorted with a small Firmware like SwitchOS
with layer2 and layer3 capacities, features and options like greater or bigger Switches are offering.

Would be cool to see a MikroTik Switch like this, sorted with a small Firmware like SwitchOS
with layer2 and layer3 capacities, features and options like greater or bigger Switches are offering.

I totally agree. CRS with an expanded version of SwOS will be much better and a lot easier to configure too.

Would be cool to see a MikroTik Switch like this, sorted with a small Firmware like SwitchOS
with layer2 and layer3 capacities, features and options like greater or bigger Switches are offering.

I totally agree. CRS with an expanded version of SwOS will be much better and a lot easier to configure too.

For sure I accept that they have not the time yet to write a totally new SwitchOS sorted
with many options or plain functions offered by the most and well known bigger and by the way
I know also that for RouterOS, license fees must be paid and for SwitchOS not.

But for sure they can also set up the switches with a layer2 or layer+ standard license
and something like 10 € on top for the layer3 license or all in all 10 € more for each switch
and than layer3 comes as the standard there.

Hi,

I was planning to buy couple of this, but after checking performance reviews this puzzled me a little.
This device has 2 x 10 Gigabit SFP+ interfaces and can only achieve:

Downstream: 40 Mbps
Upstream: 12 Mbps

Isn't something wrong here, very wrong?

Something must be wrong when a RB750G performs the following:

NAT

Downstream: 780 Mbps
Upstream: 775 Mbps

Routing

Downstream: 997 Mbps
Upstream: 997 Mbps

Something must be wrong when a RB750G performs the following:

NAT

Downstream: 780 Mbps
Upstream: 775 Mbps

Routing

Downstream: 997 Mbps
Upstream: 997 Mbps

You are forgetting, that CRS226 has 400Mhz CPU, RB750G (also RB2011 & RB493G as he is mentioning) has 680 Mhz CPU.

One is meant for routing, ather one is Switch with additional L3 capabilities
(Also dont forget that most L3 switches doesnt do NAT at all, so MikroTik clearly has a bit of advantage for SOHO powerusers)

For example, my CRS125 @ 750Mhz will do approx ~350Mbps with NAT and simple 15 Line Firewall config.

Also you should probably know, that CPU load VS. Traffic troughput, is not linear on network devices, it depends from many factors...

You are forgetting, that CRS226 has 400Mhz CPU, RB750G (also RB2011 & RB493G as he is mentioning) has 680 Mhz CPU.

RB750G at 100MHz

Downstream: 150 Mbps
Upstream: 145 Mbps

RB750G at 150MHz

Downstream: 200 Mbps
Upstream: 195 Mbps

RB750G at 200MHz

Downstream: 250 Mbps
Upstream: 245 Mbps

RB750G at 300MHz

Downstream: 380 Mbps
Upstream: 375 Mbps

RB750G at 400MHz

Downstream: 500 Mbps
Upstream: 495 Mbps

RB750G at 600MHz

Downstream: 700 Mbps
Upstream: 695 Mbps

RB750G at 680MHz

Downstream: 780 Mbps
Upstream: 775 Mbps

RB750G at 800MHz

Downstream: 950 Mbps
Upstream: 945 Mbps

WOW...thanks, that is a really useful information

Which now makes me wonder, why CRS is approx 50% slower on the same Clock speed...
(I at least hope that there are technical reasons, not business reasons behind this)

WOW...thanks, that is a really useful information

It was approximately, I rounded a bit up and down to the nearest ten megabits per second. The official tests were done at 400 MHz, take a look at the following page.

http://routerboard.com/RB750G

Which now makes me wonder, why CRS is approx 50% slower on the same Clock speed...

Only 50% slower, JeLi claimed 40 Mbps.

Only 50% slower, JeLi claimed 40 Mbps.

Compared to my results, unfortunately I dont have a CRS226 to play with, only CRS125 so I have no way to compare them...

After a couple of weeks and upgrading the CRS226 device to the new OS version 6.17 and the board to the firmware 3.17 I repeated the (routing)performance test of this switch:

Downstream: 25Mbps (120Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 12Mbps (my ISP line speed upstream)
NAT rules: 1 (only the "standard" masquerade rule)
IP filter rules: 0
cpu-load: 100%

In the meantime I have bought the CCR1009 router for routing/firewall purposes and I am happy with this device.

The CRS226 is fine for SoHo environments with a ISP line speed not more than 20Mbit/s. For everything above a proper router is necessary.

JeLi, How many firewall rules do you have in the crs226?

As I wrote above already, there is no Firewall rule: IP filter rules: 0.

Do you have new information?
Here is my experience with CRS125, CRS109 and RB2011.

Installation: home network (standard NAT and few FW rules, road warrior vpn usually not active)

CRS125-24G-1S-RM v6.27 (the same 6.25, 6.26)
Downstream: 30-120Mbps (200Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 20Mbps (20Mbit/s ISP line speed upstream)
cpu-load on Speedtest max 80%

RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN v6.25 (on other Place)
Downstream: 200Mbps (200Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 20Mbps (20Mbit/s ISP line speed upstream)
cpu-load on Speedtest max 80%

i thnk, OK CRS125 is a Switch? But then i test CRS109-8G-1S-2HnD-IN

CRS109-8G-1S-2HnD-IN v6.15 (out of the Box)
Downstream: 200Mbps (200Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 20Mbps (20Mbit/s ISP line speed upstream)
cpu-load on Speedtest max 80%

CRS109-8G-1S-2HnD-IN v6.15 (Export/Import Config from CRS125-24G)
Downstream: 200Mbps (200Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 20Mbps (20Mbit/s ISP line speed upstream)
cpu-load on Speedtest max 80%

CRS109-8G-1S-2HnD-IN v6.27 (Export/Import Config from CRS125-24G)
Downstream: 120Mbps (200Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 20Mbps (20Mbit/s ISP line speed upstream)
cpu-load on Speedtest max 80%

WTF!? then it test...

CRS125-24G-1S-RM v6.15
Downstream: 200Mbps (200Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 20Mbps (20Mbit/s ISP line speed upstream)
cpu-load on Speedtest max 80%

I'm sure somewhere after v6.15 is a mistake somewhere!

Does anyone have similar experience or have any idea what is the problem?

EDIT: i open a neu post http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94822

Could you try the solution that works on the CRS125 to see if it also resolves the CRS226 slow routing issue?

Please see the following post: http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 16#p472506

Hammer,
Thanks for the tests.

I can confirm 6.15 has a much higher throughput on my CRS125-24G-1S than latest 6.27.
I had some time to waste, so I went through all RouterOS versions from 6.15 to 6.27 to see where it broke : 6.21 is where I lose 50% from performance.

Maybe someone from Mikrotik will see this and investigate a little more. So far, 6.20 is the fastest.
Cheers!

Kinda fun how people intend to use a switch to do routing, A switch is a L2 device and not a L3,

While it the CRS allow you to use some L3 function it doesn't means that it will route at wire speed nor even close in fact it haven't been even designed to do so, routing is a resource intensive process that cannot be carried at high level on such low powered CPU,

My advice is buy a separate router there are Mikrotik router that can do 600 Mbit + for around 80-100 USD and come even with a SFP cage,

Kinda fun how people intend to use a switch to do routing, A switch is a L2 device and not a L3,

Hi Alael
Yes, the 'CRS' series is a Switch or? (CRS Cloud Router Switch) but ...
1. This is for a family, but with VPN function
2. I have tested it before and had no problems with the speed
3. This is not true. Example: HP has more Layer 3 switches as Layer 2 but without a firewall, NAT, etc.

I had no chance to get the settings or newer firmware to test locally. Should I be on it, I can test it then.

Switches in routers in the non "soft" world are the same thing these days.. IPs/routes get programmed in hardware and forwarded at line rate.

I wish MT would actually start programming the forwarding tables in the switch chips to make them line rate routers.. that'd be the cats PJs.

Kinda fun how people intend to use a switch to do routing, A switch is a L2 device and not a L3,

While it the CRS allow you to use some L3 function it doesn't means that it will route at wire speed nor even close in fact it haven't been even designed to do so, routing is a resource intensive process that cannot be carried at high level on such low powered CPU,

My advice is buy a separate router there are Mikrotik router that can do 600 Mbit + for around 80-100 USD and come even with a SFP cage,

Kinda fun how people intend to use a switch to do routing, A switch is a L2 device and not a L3,

While it the CRS allow you to use some L3 function it doesn't means that it will route at wire speed nor even close in fact it haven't been even designed to do so, routing is a resource intensive process that cannot be carried at high level on such low powered CPU,

My advice is buy a separate router there are Mikrotik router that can do 600 Mbit + for around 80-100 USD and come even with a SFP cage,

i think the confusion started with marketing statements from mikrotik about CRS series establishing it as a layer 3 switch.

In networking a layer 3 switch its a layer 2 switch with some layer 3 capabilities at wire speeds like routing build in in hardware ASIC.

CRS is NOT a layer 3 switch

CRS is a layer 2 switch plus a router (600mhz single core cpu 128 mb ram) embedded in for management purposes, that explains why newer and powerfull CRS 2xx has a lower performance router (400mhz), its only for management purposes.

of course we can take advantage of the embedded router capabilities, but taking in account the limited performance of router functionalities.

With this in mind we must focus efforts on exploiting hardware switch capabilities, that is the purpose of CRS series, provide a layer 2 switch alternative to compliment the existing router products.

Examining CRS switching capabilities, the potential its awesome, i am impressed with the pool of extensive options avaliable to use, practically mikrotik exposes all switch chipset capabilities to the delight of networking engineer.

Its necessary to work documenting this huge capabilities in especific escenarios to make the CRS a practical solution.

I think important points to do this are:
Do not try to do with switch the work suited for a router
Do not try to do witch router the work suited for a switch.
Concentrate efforts on Switch capabilities, (switch menu on winbox) use the other funtionalities only for device management purposes.

I personally have verified following mikrotik CRS examples on version 6.27 and works as expected:
Port Based VLAN
Mac Based VLAN
Port Level Isolation
Protocol Level Isolation

Thats a start to replace other vendor switches with CRS.

take in count CRS miss some key market functionalities:

802.1x authentication
STP and RSTP for loop prevention.
Link Aggregation compatible with other vendors (LACP)
ACL (on CRS 1xx is not supported)

QoS are extensive but its totally different from router os queue tree and simple queue strategies
QoS on hardware switch of CRS its based on industry commonly known as hierarchical modular qos which is widely documented from mayor vendors of the industry.

exploiting CRS huge switching functionalities requires study but the reward its huge, getting provider class functionalities with a 200US switch its simply a win win

If you are new to the switching topic you must familiarize with that, manageable switches are different in purpose and capabilities from routers, and in many cases mikrotik users are very familiar with routers but not manageable switches.

I'm looking at buying a CRS226-24G-2S+ since it has two 10Gbps SFP+, however I came across this read while doing research which has me a bit worried about L3 performance.

I'm hoping to connect this to a VDSL2 service that provides 100Mbps down / 40Mbps up with the following features ideally handled by the CRS:

* PPPoE for the Internet providing IPv4 and IPv6
* A few VPNs (PPTP/L2TP - no more than 3 or 4 concurrent)
* NAT for the Internet
* Couple of firewall rules for inbound from the Internet to a server

Am I pushing my luck with this on the CRS on its own?

The 226 is a low performance router. It is not similar to the 2011.

The 125 is similar to the 2011.

Same result 25/12 with CRS125-24G-1S-2HnD-IN simple masqarade

After a couple of weeks and upgrading the CRS226 device to the new OS version 6.17 and the board to the firmware 3.17 I repeated the (routing)performance test of this switch:

Downstream: 25Mbps (120Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 12Mbps (my ISP line speed upstream)
NAT rules: 1 (only the "standard" masquerade rule)
IP filter rules: 0
cpu-load: 100%

In the meantime I have bought the CCR1009 router for routing/firewall purposes and I am happy with this device.

The CRS226 is fine for SoHo environments with a ISP line speed not more than 20Mbit/s. For everything above a proper router is necessary.

Same result 25/12 with CRS125-24G-1S-2HnD-IN simple masqarade

After a couple of weeks and upgrading the CRS226 device to the new OS version 6.17 and the board to the firmware 3.17 I repeated the (routing)performance test of this switch:

Downstream: 25Mbps (120Mbit/s ISP line speed downstream)
Upstream: 12Mbps (my ISP line speed upstream)
NAT rules: 1 (only the "standard" masquerade rule)
IP filter rules: 0
cpu-load: 100%

In the meantime I have bought the CCR1009 router for routing/firewall purposes and I am happy with this device.

The CRS226 is fine for SoHo environments with a ISP line speed not more than 20Mbit/s. For everything above a proper router is necessary.

Not sure why this old topic got re-opened, these devices are switches and shouldn't be used for routing. If you want to do so anyway, know what you are getting!

But your results are incorrect for a CRS125. It's able to do around 200 to 300Mbps of NAT (use fasttrack, etc.). Also check earlier in the topic where I linked to a possible setting issue causing slower speeds than necessary. If you have a CRS226, the speeds you posted are inline with what is to be expected. It's a switch.

p.s. Just as an update, because this topic is very old. In the current RC versions of RouterOS, STP has been implemented for CRS devices.

Yes, this topic scared me when I wanted to upgrade my internet to a supposedly 1Gbps connection, but the posts here are outdated and/or wrong.

I'm running a CRS125-24G and for me it routes at 700Mbps WAN to LAN through PPPoE > VLAN > ETHER1 with masquerade NAT. Still has 20% CPU idle, when it's doing it. More than enough for most situations where you would use it. That's with FastTrack of course.

I expect with good configuration you would get at least half that performance on the 226.

I am extremely happy with the product. Not only is it a single device which replaces both a switch and a router, but it also performs amazingly.

Just wanted to say I fell for that device, too. Why a 'Cloud Router Switch' should not be used for routing is beyond me, but I'm using it as a Switch now...

How would you call a switch you attach to a router? Just a switch? Me too.

For sure there are applications where such switch can be nicely used as a router too. But none can complain about the performance when it is used so.

People probably get confused because other manufacturers market "L3 switches" that you could also name a "router/switch"
but those actually route at wirespeed. I remember that when I first got a 1Gbit L3 switch at work I was amazed at the routing
performance it had, relative to our Cisco 3600 router at the time.

However, the routing functionality of such a switch is often less than that of a MikroTik CRS. Basic models have only
static routes and sometimes RIP. Expensive models can have BGP but often limited. Tunneling is not possible, let alone
encrypted tunneling. However, as a router between VLANs, and between company sites connected by transparent ethernet
metro networks, they perform just fine.

The MikroTik CRS just isn't in that class. It does not do routing in the switch fabric. When you want a true L3 switch, don't
shop at MikroTik. Go to Aruba networks, Cisco, etc.
When you actually want a fast router (not a switch), you can get a MikroTik CCR. But you will need a proper switch in addition.

this device is terrible, it becomes a toy.
I switch the cables from the server to crs 326-24g-2s+rm
I have configured my routing settings, passes half the traffic 450mbit.
processor is loaded on 70% / no losses, but not passes all traffic