EdgeRouter X and X SFP

[Trip]

Hi Guys,

Perhaps this is a bit old by now, but just saw the ER-X and ER-X SFP up on UBNT's site (datasheet).

Interesting price point and throughput -- seems perfect for SOHO installs. What say you guys? Look promising?

 

[System Error Message]

That seems very similar to mikrotik RB450G in terms of specs though ubiquiti may have hardware acceleration for NAT but if you are expecting to do NAT with it you would probably be seeing around 200-300Mb/s in throughput.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Looking forward to it, it should bring some great new options for deployments with unusual needs.
We run the EdgeRouter Pro in our server room ..brutally fast with wicked low latency...very stable.
The Edge Router Lite has been great for many deployments we've done....that little box was tested here at over 860 megs throughput...so I'm sure this one will be a whisker faster for true giggy throughput (not that we can utilize even 1/10th of that here in the US).

 

[System Error Message]

Looking forward to it, it should bring some great new options for deployments with unusual needs.
We run the EdgeRouter Pro in our server room ..brutally fast with wicked low latency...very stable.
The Edge Router Lite has been great for many deployments we've done....that little box was tested here at over 860 megs throughput...so I'm sure this one will be a whisker faster for true giggy throughput (not that we can utilize even 1/10th of that here in the US).

The edgerouter X and SFP are much slower than the edgeroute lite. The edgerouter lite boasts speeds of over 1Mpps (with hardware acceleration) while the edgeroute X is rated at 130Kpps. If the edgerouter X achieved that speed with hardware acceleration than it will obviously be much much slower for NAT because from what i've been reading around the forums is that hardware NAT is either limited or doesnt seem to work so far. Being old hardware i suspect those rated speeds to be for L3 routing instead of NAT.

 

[rahuljawale]

Edgerouter X is an MIPS based design. I don't have the reference handy, but I read it on UBNT forums.

 

[DanK]

First off, the ER-X and ER-X-SFP are NOT higher performance than the ERL. They are lower cost and lower performance than the ERL.
Second, the ER-X and ER-X-SFP do not have hardware routing offloading (at least not yet...).

ERL routing performance for 512 byte or larger packet size is 3 Gbps, and 64 byte packet size is 1,000,000 pps.
ER-X and ER-X-SFP routing performance for 1518 byte packet size is 1 Gbps, and 64 byte packet size is 130 Kpps (130,000).

Even so both should be able to do close to 1 Gbps with 1500 byte packets. And both should preform decent with a small network. But as the network size increases, the ERL's performance over the ER-X and ER-X-SFP will also increase.

 

[Verifine]

I've purchased an ER-X for use at home with two LANs and two WANs. At work we have a nice gigabit pipe to the Internet, and we use an ER-Lite for our PBX. We have a /27 block of addresses and the ER-Lite has one of them. I assigned another to the ER-X.

I'm using AT&T's speed test, since it gives me numbers that correspond well to what EdgeOS is telling me. For speed testing I'm using a MacBook Pro with gigabit Ethernet.

The ER-Lite consistently shows test results of 900+ megabits/second, both up and down. I was hoping for similar results with the ER-X, but it's actually quite disappointing - a bit under 500 Mbits down and about 600 Mbits up. This is on a brand new ER-X with minimal configuration, just enough to get online.

The Internet connection was essentially idle, as I tested early in the morning. I've been hoping to use the ER-X when/if Google Fiber knocks at my door (they're doing Nashville, but not every neighborhood.) I can live with ~500 Mbps, but really did expect more.

Does anyone else have test results for the ER-X?

 

[Cloud200]

That sounds about right.
I have an ER-X sfp here and the most I saw through it was using it purely as a router from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.2.2 with the ER-X being assigned 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1.
I was able to get about 900 mb/s through it like that.

Interestingly enough . . . if you need to use the edgemax line in such a way that the hardware offload functions of the router will become disabled (traffic shaping rules for example) then the ER-X is actually faster than the ER-Lite, not slower.

One additional caveat. The ER-X has half the RAM of the ER-Lite.

 

[Trip]

Considering the street price for the ER-X will probably find it's way down towards $60-70 USD (or lower?), I'd say 1/2 gig full duplex is pretty decent, no?

 

[kamina]

Considering the street price for the ER-X will probably find it's way down towards $60-70 USD (or lower?), I'd say 1/2 gig full duplex is pretty decent, no?

Yep, great pricing if you ask me...