Ubiquiti EdgeMax EdgeRouter Pro Reviewed

[Altheran]

Hi SMB People,

I just read the review and think it is unfair to rank the Edge router pro @736Mbps Total simultaneous throuput.

The Edge Router Lite is at 1306Mbps , it make absolutely no sense that the PRO with 2.5X the routing power is at 736Mbps.

Please fix this, it deserve a better ranking ^_^.

Appart from that, Great Review !

Edit : Here is a link to the article
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-reviews/32398-ubiquiti-edgemax-edgerouter-pro-reviewed

 

[thiggins]

We ran multiple tests and the results were about the same. We were not able to duplicate the EdgeRouter Lite's high throughput with the EdgeRouter Pro.

I agree it doesn't make sense, but that's what it is. We'll try another retest in awhile.

 

[Altheran]

A comment on Uquiquiti forums is quite interresting. Our suspicion would be that Hardware Offloading was disabled, affecting performance.

Would be interesting to see the output of "show ubnt offload"

 

[thiggins]

A comment on Uquiquiti forums is quite interresting. Our suspicion would be that Hardware Offloading was disabled, affecting performance.

Would be interesting to see the output of "show ubnt offload"

I was in contact with Ubiquiti during the review process. Hardware offload is enabled by default, so that is what the test data reflects.

I ran the tests with offload disabled. Unidirectional routing throughput moved up to Gigabit wire speed. Simultaneous up/downlink also improved, but with high variation. The variation is probably due to limitations in the test computers and OS I use.

So, yes, the hardware offload setting significantly affects routing performance.

 

[Cloud200]

I was in contact with Ubiquiti during the review process. Hardware offload is enabled by default, so that is what the test data reflects.

I ran the tests with offload disabled. Unidirectional routing throughput moved up to Gigabit wire speed. Simultaneous up/downlink also improved, but with high variation. The variation is probably due to limitations in the test computers and OS I use.

So, yes, the hardware offload setting significantly affects routing performance.

So just to confirm;
The speed recorded by the test setup increased when offload was disabled?

 

[thiggins]

So just to confirm;
The speed recorded by the test setup increased when offload was disabled?

That is correct.

 

[stevech]

Hardware offload - in a general sense... does it mean simply that the IP packet checksum generation and check is offloaded? Anything else?

 

[svah]

It seems strange that this router would be unable to match the lite's throughput. Do you anticipate trying different configurations and getting greater throughput?

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Ordered one for our server room (mini data center)...we're bringing in an AT&T fiber connection and need lowest latency possible. A fiber pipe and the Edgemax should fit the bill! Right now it's running on a combination of 5x IPs from a cable ISP and 5x IPs from AT&T DSL. Split across a large Untangle firewall running on an HP Proliant DL380 (dual Xeons and 4x interfaces), and a Cisco RV016.

 

[connorm]

default offload settings on EdgeRouter Lite Running 1.5.0 Beta



ERL login: admin
Password:
Last login: Mon May 12 20:52:55 PDT 2014 on pts/0
Linux ERL 3.4.27-UBNT #1 SMP Fri May 2 01:05:41 PDT 2014 mips64
Welcome to EdgeOS
show uadmin@ERL:~$ show ubnt offload
IP offload module : loaded
IPv4
forwarding: enabled
vlan : disabled
pppoe : disabled
IPv6
forwarding: disabled
vlan : disabled
pppoe : disabled

IPSec offload module: not loaded
admin@ERL:~$

i could do some testing but im not sure exactly how to do so, or if i have the proper equipment to do so

 

[Brett Ferrell]

Did this ever get retested? I'd like to connect it to my gig fiber line.... can it port forward to multiple subnets (my R7000 won't, which is annoying)?

 

[System Error Message]

Ordered one for our server room (mini data center)...we're bringing in an AT&T fiber connection and need lowest latency possible. A fiber pipe and the Edgemax should fit the bill! Right now it's running on a combination of 5x IPs from a cable ISP and 5x IPs from AT&T DSL. Split across a large Untangle firewall running on an HP Proliant DL380 (dual Xeons and 4x interfaces), and a Cisco RV016.

you use a cisco RV for low latency :O. You should get either a ubiquiti edgerouter without switch or a mikrotik router without a switch chip. For a router direct CPU connected ports means low latency. The cisco RV is using a very outdated CPU and it has a switch chip for LAN ports.

 

[Nullity]

you use a cisco RV for low latency :O. You should get either a ubiquiti edgerouter without switch or a mikrotik router without a switch chip. For a router direct CPU connected ports means low latency. The cisco RV is using a very outdated CPU and it has a switch chip for LAN ports.

Are you speaking from experience with these particular devices? It almost seems like you have a vendetta against @YeOldeStonecat...

 

[sfx2000]

you use a cisco RV for low latency :O

The RV is likely for the management LAN - low data rates, and it's cheap enough in a setup like YeOldeStonecat is talking about - the real load is on the DL380, and I've had a few of them - they're pretty beefy boxes...

 

[System Error Message]

Ah, nothing beats a bunch of beefy intel CPUs with some server NICs when it comes to throughput and latency except CPU connected ports of routers with good CPU too such as for TILE.

If you have a lot of x86 computing power why get ubiquiti? Is it for a backup? Tunneling? some other non relevant LAN?

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

you use a cisco RV for low latency :O. You should get either a ubiquiti edgerouter without switch or a mikrotik router without a switch chip. For a router direct CPU connected ports means low latency. The cisco RV is using a very outdated CPU and it has a switch chip for LAN ports.

Nice ancient thread revival. We have an EdgeRouter Pro, on a fiber pipe now....since the old CiscoRV0 lineup now is quite defunct.

Bring up a 10 year old thread next time and ask why someone is still using a Pentium IV HyperThread (Northwood).

 

[Dave in NM]

I have an Asus RT-AC88u, and i was thinking about how to up my game here, and was consider the EdgeRouter or Pro, given it was reviewed as being extremely fast, which is what i need, but reviewing these numbers on the EdgeRouter Pro
Test Description EdgeRouter Pro
WAN - LAN 304.1
LAN - WAN 553.6
Total Simultaneous 736.6
Maximum Simultaneous Connections 30,998

Vs these on the Asus,

Test Description ASUS RT-AC88U
WAN-LAN (Mbps) 802 Mbps
LAN-WAN (Mbps) 791 Mbps
Total Simultaneous (Mbps) 1406 Mbps
Maximum Simultaneous Connections 35,938
Firmware Version 3.0.0.4.380_858

I'm just not getting why its rated so fast, seems slower than the Asus router, but maybe i'm just late to the game here. I think it was maybe super fast at the time or release but is not so by today's standards?

 

[System Error Message]

I have an Asus RT-AC88u, and i was thinking about how to up my game here, and was consider the EdgeRouter or Pro, given it was reviewed as being extremely fast, which is what i need, but reviewing these numbers on the EdgeRouter Pro
Test Description EdgeRouter Pro
WAN - LAN 304.1
LAN - WAN 553.6
Total Simultaneous 736.6
Maximum Simultaneous Connections 30,998

Vs these on the Asus,

Test Description ASUS RT-AC88U
WAN-LAN (Mbps) 802 Mbps
LAN-WAN (Mbps) 791 Mbps
Total Simultaneous (Mbps) 1406 Mbps
Maximum Simultaneous Connections 35,938
Firmware Version 3.0.0.4.380_858

I'm just not getting why its rated so fast, seems slower than the Asus router, but maybe i'm just late to the game here. I think it was maybe super fast at the time or release but is not so by today's standards?

do you have hardware acceleration enabled and in use? If not its why you got those speeds.

 

[Dave in NM]

do you have hardware acceleration enabled and in use? If not its why you got those speeds.

No i'm just quoting the test speeds on SNB.

 

[System Error Message]

No i'm just quoting the test speeds on SNB.

The ERPRO speeds arent based on hardware NAT. the speeds for the AC88U are based on using hardware NAT.

Put it this way, with hardware acceleration and no PPPOE they're both wirespeed. Add PPPOE and they arent wirespeed anymore. disable hardware acceleration or use QoS and they're both pretty much the same speed though with asus being faster in QoS (ARM vs MIPS).

If you want a wirespeed router that is wirespeed without any sort of hardware acceleration than the 2 routers i know are x86 and Tilera Tilegx based.