swos is dead?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:28 pm
project is dead?
More than a year no new version
Page 1 of 1
Re: swos is dead?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:19 pm
It looks like it ...
More than a year no new version
More than a year no new version
Re: swos is dead?
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:10 pm
Its a mess ... you have great pieces of hardware .. e.g. RB260GSP it is perfect for wireless communities like freifunk.
But if we dont get an update witch fix the poe issues (still there on port1) and some small software features like vlan/port naming etc. ... we have to go to an other product/manufractor ....
@mikrotik
so please can you inform us whats the roadmap for the switchOS ?
But if we dont get an update witch fix the poe issues (still there on port1) and some small software features like vlan/port naming etc. ... we have to go to an other product/manufractor ....
@mikrotik
so please can you inform us whats the roadmap for the switchOS ?
Re: swos is dead?
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:18 am
...RB260 series switches are still supported. Major SwOS bugs will be fixed if
found, but new features are not planned in the near future.
answer from mikrotik support.
found, but new features are not planned in the near future.
answer from mikrotik support.
Re: swos is dead?
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:06 pm
There are major bugs that have not been attended to yet. It seems it is dead and it is such a shame as the 260GSP is the only POE gigabit layer2 switch at a good price.
Still hoping for fixes !
Still hoping for fixes !
Re: swos is dead?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:11 am
Ah.. And no new hardware for a while.
I was hoping for VSS and 24 ports PoE...
I was hoping for VSS and 24 ports PoE...
Re: swos is dead?
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:26 am
I just deployed 5 of these 260GSP units. There are some real issues. E.g ;
NO subnet mask against the IP address such as 172.16.1.1 or 10.1.1.1 seems to default to a /24 address range.
VLAN and the mikrotik discovery protocol on these units cannot be seen by other MT products on the same VLAN, but strangely WINBOX does ?
Using them as a trunk 802.11Q e.g PC-> [ SFP -> Port 5 ->] -> RB912UAG-2HPnD and using a managament vlan #1000 with IP's on each device on the managment vlan. Allows me to ping right throu the 260GSP to the end device with <1ms on vlan 1000. But if I ping the 260GSP's management IP on vlan #1000, produces a constant 15mS result.. That aint right..
NO subnet mask against the IP address such as 172.16.1.1 or 10.1.1.1 seems to default to a /24 address range.
VLAN and the mikrotik discovery protocol on these units cannot be seen by other MT products on the same VLAN, but strangely WINBOX does ?
Using them as a trunk 802.11Q e.g PC-> [ SFP -> Port 5 ->] -> RB912UAG-2HPnD and using a managament vlan #1000 with IP's on each device on the managment vlan. Allows me to ping right throu the 260GSP to the end device with <1ms on vlan 1000. But if I ping the 260GSP's management IP on vlan #1000, produces a constant 15mS result.. That aint right..
Re: swos is dead?
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:07 pm
SwOS uses a simple algorithm to ensure TCP/IP communication - it just replies to the same IP and MAC address packet came from.NO subnet mask against the IP address such as 172.16.1.1 or 10.1.1.1 seems to default to a /24 address range.
RB260 has a simple CPU just to ensure configuration management of the Gigabit switch-chip. The higher latency does not affect its switching capabilities and an access to the web GUI.Using them as a trunk 802.11Q e.g PC-> [ SFP -> Port 5 ->] -> RB912UAG-2HPnD and using a managament vlan #1000 with IP's on each device on the managment vlan. Allows me to ping right throu the 260GSP to the end device with <1ms on vlan 1000. But if I ping the 260GSP's management IP on vlan #1000, produces a constant 15mS result.. That aint right..
Re: swos is dead?
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:29 am
Hi
It may pass vlan traffic at wirespeed OK, but 15mS ping response @ 1Gbps fiber link is a long time in the network world and looks bad on some of my monitoring equipment especially when peer IT people are looking over my install and laughing, telling me I should have put cisco gear in.
In hindsight I should have put in some RB750UPr2 with a gigabit fiber media converter in my 5 locations as my network backbone is primarily fiber. Ideally if a RB750UPr2 had a SFP slot I would pick that over the RB260GSP.
It may pass vlan traffic at wirespeed OK, but 15mS ping response @ 1Gbps fiber link is a long time in the network world and looks bad on some of my monitoring equipment especially when peer IT people are looking over my install and laughing, telling me I should have put cisco gear in.
In hindsight I should have put in some RB750UPr2 with a gigabit fiber media converter in my 5 locations as my network backbone is primarily fiber. Ideally if a RB750UPr2 had a SFP slot I would pick that over the RB260GSP.
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:21 am
Measuring response of request to the web server running on the switch is nonsense. Rather measure responses through the switch.