I haven't run into any issues on the RB1100's, but that could very well just be because I haven't had anything with much load on those ports... on the RB1200, they most certainly do suck - it would be much better if those ports weren't even there.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's just killing me because I've been pulling my hair out trying to find > an ethernet or RF problem that isn't there. Grrrrr. > > > > On 8/4/2015 2:54 PM, Gabriel Pike wrote: > > The block diagram shows 9 & 10 on PCIe. I have had performance issues on > both of these ports and have pulled most 1200 routers from production. > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *George Skorup > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:17 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] RB1200 ports 9&10 > > > > 11, 12 and 13 on the 1100 each have dedicated PCIe lanes to the CPU. I > haven't really seen any issues with them, at least on the 1100AHx2. I have > one original 1100 and one 1100AH left in the network and those aren't doing > much. The bigger issue I've seen with the 1100AHx2 is the fans quit and the > whole thing needs a power-cycle to get them going again. I've seen this on > every single one I have deployed. > > On 8/4/2015 1:06 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Whichever the last few ports are. Check the block diagrams on > routerboard.com to see which ones are special. It's not EVERYTHING not > ran through a switch chip, but darn near. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:05:09 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] RB1200 ports 9&10 > > RB1xxx ? So is this an issue with the 1100 also? > > On 8/4/2015 2:01 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > The last couple ports on the RB1xxx series... suck. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > <http://www.ics-il.com>http://www.ics-il.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > Midwest Internet Exchange > <http://www.midwest-ix.com>http://www.midwest-ix.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:00:14 PM > *Subject: *[AFMUG] RB1200 ports 9&10 > > I just read a forum post saying that ports 9&10 on the RB1200 > underperform compared to the other ports. > > Does anyone know how bad that underperformance is? I've been pulling my > hair out for days chasing a performance issue on a backhaul, and it > turns out one end of it is plugged into port9 on an RB1200. > > Could it make my 200 meg link only do 90meg? > > > > > > > > > > >
