dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1317
share rss forum feed


Brano
I hate Vogons
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Fibe

4 recommendations

Ubiquiti EdgeRouter performance testing

For those interested ... »blog.linitx.com/ubiquiti-edgerou···testing/

quote:
Here are the headline figures: (tests using iperf over TCP, details shown later)

1) 888 Mbits/sec routed
2) 111 Mbits/sec over an IPSec tunnel

BTW Ubiquity just released 1.5.0 firmware (not on download page yet, but can be found here »community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Up···p/888586


ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

I haven't done any throughput testing yet with mine, but those numbers look pretty good. I have 1.5.0RC1 loaded on mine and have the release version on my computer just waiting for me to get some time to install.

Mine is setup with dual WAN and one LAN with some load balancing and using NAT to force certain LAN computers to specific WAN ports using masquerade.



Hank
Searching for a new Frontier
Premium
join:2002-05-21
Burlington, WV
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 edit

Agree, the performance testing is excellent, I have my POE version currently set for 1 WAN and three separate LAN's. Working on getting it setup for dual WAN and with the three separate LAN's.

Only issue I had after loading 1.5.0 was that the CLI command prompt via the GUI was slow to appear. A reboot corrected that issue.



Brano
I hate Vogons
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:10
reply to ropeguru

Running 1.5.0 final here ... no issues.
Basic 1 WAN PPPoE setup on 15/10 line, 7 IPSec site-to-site tunnels, 2 LANs.



mozerd
Light Will Pierce The Darkness
Premium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON
reply to Brano

SWEET!.



ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
reply to Brano

I have an OT question since there are some ERL users here.

Have any of you gotten the ERL to work with Comcast IPv6, that is if you have Comcast? If so, could you provide the necessary configs?



Hank
Searching for a new Frontier
Premium
join:2002-05-21
Burlington, WV
kudos:2

Sorry, we are stuck with Frontier. Wish we had Comcast.


HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:18
reply to Brano

Good to know... and now if anyone asks "what can these things do thruput-wise," we've got some hard numbers to point to.

Question, can it do stronger than AES128/SHA1? I'd think so, but I'm kind of wondering why they chose that level of
encryption / hashing for testing.

Regards



Brano
I hate Vogons
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:10

ER currently supports:
encryption: 3des aes128 aes256
hash: md5 sha1 sha256 sha384 sha512


HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:18

...good to know Brano See Profile , maybe I'll try this same test myself with aes256 / sha512 just for gits and shiggles... if I get the time.

Regards



Brano
I hate Vogons
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:10

1 edit

When/if you do it make sure you test with both HW offload on and off. I'm curious about the results.


Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC

1 edit

love my ERL running 1.5.0

is anyone in here running FQ_CoDel other then me?


HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:18

...got any throughput testing of your own ERL there Fryst See Profile , just out of curiousity? Or planning to do your own?

Regards



mozerd
Light Will Pierce The Darkness
Premium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON
reply to Fryst

I have no reason to run it since I do not suffer from bufferbloat. Why do you?


Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
Reviews:
·Yak Communications
reply to HELLFIRE

said by HELLFIRE:

...got any throughput testing of your own ERL there Fryst See Profile , just out of curiousity? Or planning to do your own?

Regards

if i needed the throughput i would look into it, but my network is always being used and taking it down for anything pointless is a no go.

if i dont need the throughput. i cant think of a point to it.

i expect that even if i get shaw broadband 250 (about 265/16 at max)

that i will not even need to worry about it

if i need insane throughput and the ERL lets me down, there will be options, i have seen LOTS of different results from lots of simulated tests.

the only results i like for WAN > LAN are REAL WORLD results. not simulated. not creating the transfer, BUT ACTUALLY USING IT for that amount of throughput.

but honestly. i seen plenty of people get 941 on ERL properly configured

i never had a doubt if i got a gig connection i would get 941. not saying it would be easy, but id figure it out.........

if i got 900, big woop.

Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
Reviews:
·Yak Communications
reply to mozerd

said by mozerd:

I have no reason to run it since I do not suffer from bufferbloat. Why do you?

ill believe you dont suffer from bufferbloat when i seen 100K + packets sent received with no loss and an average no higher then 5ms above minimum.

almost everyone suffers from bufferbloat mildly from time to time whether they know it or not

an easy way to show the effects of bufferbloat is to run a constant ping to google ( or your first/next hop) and simply run a speedtest

even on a 50mbit downstream i can saturate it enough to cause bufferbloat problems.

for me with 5.5mbit upload just a single photo or music upload is enough to negatively impact my connection.

also with the BT protocol uploading more gains you more rights and a higher chance at scoring more download. the fact i have NO LIMITER on my upload. and my ping goes no where when im uploading is a big one.

there might be very few people who never saturate there upload.

but any type of uploading/downloading that takes your connection about 70% capacity has the potential to create bufferbloat issues

fb/insagram/twitter and all social media uploads can easily fill a 5mbit link like i have

phone backups to icloud are huge. and extremely frustrating when someone is doing it on my connection without fq_codel. iphone backups will fully saturate upload for a good while

Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
Reviews:
·Yak Communications

unfortunately i just rebooted my computer running constant pings today. i had over 1,000,000 packets sent/recieved with no loss

From 173.194.33.5: bytes=60 seq=1bee TTL=56 ID=349b time=13.389ms
From 173.194.33.5: bytes=60 seq=1bef TTL=56 ID=349c time=14.372ms
From 173.194.33.5: bytes=60 seq=1bf0 TTL=56 ID=349d time=15.467ms
From 173.194.33.5: bytes=60 seq=1bf1 TTL=56 ID=349e time=14.192ms
From 173.194.33.5: bytes=60 seq=1bf2 TTL=56 ID=349f time=15.796ms
From 173.194.33.5: bytes=60 seq=1bf3 TTL=56 ID=34a0 time=14.552ms
From 173.194.33.5: bytes=60 seq=1bf4 TTL=56 ID=34a1 time=14.760ms
[Aborting...]

Packets: sent=7156, rcvd=7155, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 3577.527831 sec
RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 13.108 / 15.705 / 354.888 / 4.868
Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.120, rcvd=0.119



davidg
Good Bye My Friend
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-15
none
reply to Brano

looks like I have no fear of my ERPOE overloading, I have a 50/8 on Wan 1 and 1.5/256k on WAN2.

but it far outperforms my old Cisco RV042!
--
Lack of Preparation on YOUR Part does NOT Constitute an Emergency on Mine!


Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
Reviews:
·Yak Communications

said by davidg:

but it far outperforms my old Cisco RV042!

it will outperform alot more then that

im sure EdgeRouter Lite can outperform a few products that would have cost near $5000 in the last 10 years

such an amazing piece of hardware

HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:18
reply to Fryst

...okay, not sure what that was... but I think a simple "no, you don't have any" would've sufficed

Thanks for the response, figured I'd ask.

Regards


Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
Reviews:
·Yak Communications

sorry, i don't like it when people answer stuff without explaining so i just figured id explain why

in no way am i saying measuing wan>lan is a bad idea im just saying i can't think of a reason why i would care.

i assume the unit can do 941 with the right settings. if i tried testing id probably mess something up like most people and my results could be off.

also if u test a unit n it gets 941. that doesnt mean it will ever get that in every real world situation.

fingers crossed when i get shaw broadband 250 i dont need to enable any offloading, that would make me happy



Brano
I hate Vogons
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:10
reply to Fryst

Don't run CoDel here as I don't really need it on my 15/10 line. I have offload enabled however and that seems to be keeping main CPU pretty much at zero utilization.



dtaht3

@50.197.142.x

I would argue you should do a classic bufferbloat measurement (test 1 upload, 1 download, 1 ping, at the same time) before declaring you don't need fq_codel.

Just sayin.


Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
Reviews:
·Yak Communications
reply to Brano

said by Brano:

Don't run CoDel here as I don't really need it on my 15/10 line. I have offload enabled however and that seems to be keeping main CPU pretty much at zero utilization.

a quote from mr. Dave Taht

"The octeon doesn't actually have all that much cpu horsepower - it's the offloads that make it possible to have the native forwarding rates it has. The cpu looks to me to be about 3x faster than most low end mips processors. The added cache helps a lot, too. So once you start doing something smarter than the offloads can do, or run out of cache, performance drops rapidly. Thankfully most people only need qos/aqm/packet scheduling on one interface, not them all, and has the most benefit the lower the rate you have to shape to (people running below 20Mbit need fq_codel *bad*, people running above 100mbit not as much) (there is also great benefit with BQL + fq_codel at line rates, but that too, at the moment requires firmware support in the octeon - and by "great", I mean reductions in forwarding latencies under load of 10-20ms to nearly 0. - but: that pales compared to saving 100s of ms on an internet uplink - merely getting basic qos/packet scheduling/aqm right on the uplink matters most at the moment)"

also if u see this dave, hi, it connorm on the ubnt forums


dtaht3

@50.197.142.x

The incredibly long thread connorm is quoting from is here: »community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Be···06#M5309

It does require registering for that forum to read. There are open mailing lists such as the bufferbloat.net "bloat" and cerowrt-devel and codel lists worth joining, as is the ietf "aqm" mailing list.