Why shouldn't I get a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X?

[System Error Message]

if you see a router with "RV" or "VPN" in the model number it most likely uses the same CPU and various people have had issues with that platform. Even ubiquiti had stability issues at first. Ubiquiti has the most stable implementation of that CPU so far. Its one of the reasons why i discourage people buying VPN routers because other routers now all have the same VPN features and some are even faster.

I have yet to see a 4 or 8 core implementation of the CPU despite the manufacturer stating it has 8 core variants.

 

[kvic]

if you see a router with "RV" or "VPN" in the model number it most likely uses the same CPU and various people have had issues with that platform. Even ubiquiti had stability issues at first. Ubiquiti has the most stable implementation of that CPU so far. Its one of the reasons why i discourage people buying VPN routers because other routers now all have the same VPN features and some are even faster.

I have yet to see a 4 or 8 core implementation of the CPU despite the manufacturer stating it has 8 core variants.

https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX/about-hardware-acceleration/td-p/1078639

It's actually quite sad to see the ugliness when going into details. I give up my fancy on ERL.

 

[Nullity]

The OS running on the Cisco RV* is not IOS, from what

https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX/about-hardware-acceleration/td-p/1078639

It's actually quite sad to see the ugliness when going into details. I give up my fancy on ERL.

You lost me. "Ugliness"? Too much off-loading?

 

[kvic]

You lost me. "Ugliness"? Too much off-loading?

I fancy EdgeOS could put h/w accelerators to good and full use. I meant to say that's not the case.

An Atom box like this running VyOS, pfSense etc maybe more fun and versatile.

 

[Nullity]

I fancy EdgeOS could put h/w accelerators to good and full use. I meant to say that's not the case.

An Atom box like this running VyOS, pfSense etc maybe more fun and versatile.

Aren't those Atom kits hundreds of dollars (~$400 iirc)?

While I like and currently use pfSense, the lack of useful CLI and lack of new queueing algorithms being introduced to any of the *BSDs (no fq_codel, or any other new algorithms in the past 10+ years) is annoying. As an example, I found some improperly initialized codel params in the pfSense source-code (target & interval were swapped), and while you could load them correctly via command line under certain circumstances, you could not easily fix the problem. So, until 2.3, the problem persists (I think).

 

[System Error Message]

Aren't those Atom kits hundreds of dollars (~$400 iirc)?

While I like and currently use pfSense, the lack of useful CLI and lack of new queueing algorithms being introduced to any of the *BSDs (no fq_codel, or any other new algorithms in the past 10+ years) is annoying. As an example, I found some improperly initialized codel params in the pfSense source-code (target & interval were swapped), and while you could load them correctly via command line under certain circumstances, you could not easily fix the problem. So, until 2.3, the problem persists (I think).

if an atom kit costs $400 get an i3 instead.

 

[kvic]

The MediaTek processor in ER-X is not as weak as it appears. The peripherals as mentioned before are years ahead of Cavium CN5xxx on par with Cavium CN7xxx. Surprisingly the MediaTek comes with a crypto block for AES/SHA1/SHA256 acceleration. It also has built in support of HW offload for NAT and QoS!

But none of these offload features are implemented in current release of EdgeOS (v1.7 and v1.8beta). Given UBNT makes roughtly two software releases every year, it may take 2 to 3 years to have the features implemented... if UBNT has the will to do so and not afraid of cannibalising sales of Canvium based lower end edgerouters.

 

[coxhaus]

The MediaTek processor in ER-X is not as weak as it appears. The peripherals as mentioned before are years ahead of Cavium CN5xxx on par with Cavium CN7xxx. Surprisingly the MediaTek comes with a crypto block for AES/SHA1/SHA256 acceleration. It also has built in support of HW offload for NAT and QoS!

But none of these offload features are implemented in current release of EdgeOS (v1.7 and v1.8beta). Given UBNT makes roughtly two software releases every year, it may take 2 to 3 years to have the features implemented... if UBNT has the will to do so and not afraid of cannibalising sales of Canvium based lower end edgerouters.

So I have a question if you take HW offload out of the picture because you use features which are not offloaded will the ER-X be on par or faster than an ERL? I use a layer 3 switch for local LAN and only need a router to push packets as fast as possible to the internet but I may use router features which cause HW offload not to work. So would this be a CPU comparison?

 

[Cloud200]

From the official release notes

• ERLite-3 and ERPoe-5: below 60 Mbps most likely will work, above 200 Mbps most likely will not work.
• ER-8: below 160 Mbps most likely will work, above 450 Mbps most likely will not work.
• ERPro-8: below 200 Mbps most likely will work, above 550 Mbps most likely will not work.
• ER-X and ER-X-SFP: below 100 Mbps most likely will work, above 250 Mbps most likely will not work.

So the order of raw CPU power is:
ERPro
ER8
ER-X
ERLite

 

[coxhaus]

From the official release notes

• ERLite-3 and ERPoe-5: below 60 Mbps most likely will work, above 200 Mbps most likely will not work.
• ER-8: below 160 Mbps most likely will work, above 450 Mbps most likely will not work.
• ERPro-8: below 200 Mbps most likely will work, above 550 Mbps most likely will not work.
• ER-X and ER-X-SFP: below 100 Mbps most likely will work, above 250 Mbps most likely will not work.

So the order of raw CPU power is:
ERPro
ER8
ER-X
ERLite

So the ER-X might be a better router for me over the ERlite since it has a faster processor running same code base and I tend to use ACLs a lot which will probably break HW acceleration. I cannot get GIG internet where I live now. Hopefully in the future.

I am running the Cisco RV320 router now and it is faster than my old RV180 router. I have snappier response from the RV320 over the RV180 to internet sites. I think I gained 2 ms faster response time. My layer 3 switch is faster than any routers I have tried. All I wait on is how fast the router can pass data packets to the internet. There does seem to be a difference in response time from older routers and newer routers which I think relates to the router graphs on this site. It seems the higher the rating on the router graphs the quicker response time from internet data. I guess the less lag between packets going to the internet and returning. I actually work on trying to have the fastest response time I can or lowest ping times.

I think you can only get single digit ping times now if you buy the GIG services from the ISPs. The ISPs now prioritize their traffic within their network based on this so unless you have the highest class of service your response time is going to be slower based on usage of the higher class of service.

 

[Nullity]

I think you can only get single digit ping times now if you buy the GIG services from the ISPs. The ISPs now prioritize their traffic within their network based on this so unless you have the highest class of service your response time is going to be slower based on usage of the higher class of service.

Link?

According to my readings, most packet delay is limited by the speed of light, because any good ISP, backbone, etc, has at most 50% link utilization, meaning queueing delay is negligable.

There are some very interesting, peer-reviewed white-papers by academians or employees with access to data from major bandwidth providers on the subject of reliability, bandwidth utilization, and delay. I think it was a few year-old paper from AT&T (iirc), that showed something around a 4ms additional packet delay over the speed of light from coast to coast (~20ms?).

 

[coxhaus]

What I said is just what I think. Over the last 10 years equipment has gotten faster and my ms delay has gotten higher. I still see lower ms delay with ATT. My cable connections have higher ms delays but deliver larger amounts of data. Kind of your choice. I flip back and forth.

Eight years ago I would consistently have 18 to 20 ms ping times. Now they are 27 or higher. Using the RV320 has dropped me to 25 ms. This is in Central Texas where I live. If you go outside of Texas the times rise to maybe 40 ms.

 

[Nullity]

My ping has dropped drastically over time, but I am in a rural area (DSL). A little over ~10 years ago the absolute lowest ping was ~65ms, and only a dozen or so Counter-Strike servers (back when the original CS was crazy popular) would be under 100ms. Now my ping sees a common minimum of 15ms and I can find tons of servers with a below 60ms ping.

 

[kvic]

So I have a question if you take HW offload out of the picture because you use features which are not offloaded will the ER-X be on par or faster than an ERL?

It'll be difficult to compare practically. Usually you need to go in feature by feature. Assume in the simplest case where no HW offload is used in ERL and ERX at all, then apparently ERX has more processing power.

The Mediatek SoC is at least one generation ahead of Cavium CN5020, comparable to low-end CN7000 parts. The MediaTek is a dual core but 2-thread per core CPU. Effectively 4 threads can run in parallel at any time. So think of it as 4 virtual cores in the Mediatek vs 2 virtual (actual) cores in CN5020.

And then the cores are clocked faster at 880MHz vs 500MHz in ERL. The bit-ness might be negligible. So looking from anywhere the MediaTek will have better throughput in pure software based routing.

However, the picture isn't that clear cut. Over the years, EdgeOS based on Cavium has matured. Quite a lot of HW offload were gradually added in ERL. From what I read, HW offload is so fine tuned that different paths could have offload or not even under same type of traffic. So practically it'll be difficult to compare unless feature by feature and you know a feature has no HW offload in ERL (just like what cloud200 quoted).

The EdgeOS even though sharing the same version number is quite different in ERX. User space is perhaps a common Debian software stack. The kernel is pretty sure from different SDK. ERL's kernel is compiled from Cavium SDK. ERX's kernel should be from MediaTek SDK. Since UBNT decides to share a common user space, I bet that's why it's not simple for them to enable HW offload on the MediaTek as-is per the SDK.

It'll be interesting to watch if UBNT will proactively add HW offload to ERX. I guess the decision will be easier for them if they upgrade ERL to say ERL+ with a CN7000 series SoC in future or eliminate ERL altogether from the product line...

 

[coxhaus]

Well Time Warner is going to install a 300 megbits connection at my house on Thursday. Yay finally I get high speed internet. Still no AT&T GIGapower so I am switching. I will miss AT&T DNS servers. I don't like Time Warner DNS but I will figure out a solution.

I may be in the market for a faster router if the RV320 router can not do 300 megabits.

So the only routers fast enough is going to be ER8 and ER pro8? Have I eliminated the ERL and ERX?

 

[Nullity]

Well Time Warner is going to install a 300 megbits connection at my house on Thursday. Yay finally I get high speed internet. Still no AT&T GIGapower so I am switching. I will miss AT&T DNS servers. I don't like Time Warner DNS but I will figure out a solution.

I may be in the market for a faster router if the RV320 router can not do 300 megabits.

Nice!

Symmetric upload?

 

[coxhaus]

I did not ask. I was just happy to get something fast hopefully with low response times.

 

[fjkl]

Have I eliminated the ERL and ERX?

I have the EdgeRouter X and TWC Maxx. I'm able to get well over 300 Mbps down no problem (TWC over-provisions in my area and I can get close to 360 Mbps down) as long as I have Smart Queue Management turned off. I don't really need QOS so not a problem for me. If you need QOS, then it will not cut it. My speeds dropped to below 50 Mbps just from enabling it (no other fancy features were turned on at the time).

Symmetric upload?

No, it is 20 Mbps up.

 

[Nullity]

Hmm, I thought I saw people say the ERX could reach ~150Mbit with QoS. I may be mistaken...

 

[coxhaus]

I have the EdgeRouter X and TWC Maxx. I'm able to get well over 300 Mbps down no problem (TWC over-provisions in my area and I can get close to 360 Mbps down) as long as I have Smart Queue Management turned off. I don't really need QOS so not a problem for me. If you need QOS, then it will not cut it. My speeds dropped to below 50 Mbps just from enabling it (no other fancy features were turned on at the time).


No, it is 20 Mbps up.

This sounds great as I don't think I need QOS. I really only need static routes and ACLs. If my RV320 doesn't cut it, I will buy an ER-X.