<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello George.<br>
No, unfortunatelly it doesn't. I was trying to get a more objective
reply from perhaps whoever built and maintains this router profile
in order to understand and compare when using original firmware and
OpenWrt customized to it. All around the performance X feature list.<br>
As the wiki doesn't mention that I asked it here.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Fernando<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/10/2015 15:17, George Chriss
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKcQQDu8pTMnkoC83nCEt_A5xrhbrxfKmM4_tGee2KMb+ObN0w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Fernando Frediani <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Out of curiosity. Dp these builds of OpenWrt for Mikrotik
RBs make usage of any possible hardware off-loads or config
customizations are CPU affinity possibility made by Mikrotik
themselves in their original RouterOS ?<br>
<br>
</div>
Does this help to answer your question?<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.mikrotik.com/download/share/gpl_source.zip"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.<span class="il">mikrotik</span>.com/download/share/gpl_source.zip</a><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-George<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>> Thanks<br>
> Fernando<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 15/10/2015 14:48, George Chriss wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, April 23, 2015 06:16:08 CEST, Toerless Eckert
wrote:<br>
> > This mail thread seem to have gone dark since
december with seemingly<br>
> > no conclusion.<br>
> ><br>
> > I have tried to collect the experiences reported on
the wiki page:<br>
> ><br>
> > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/mikrotik/rb2011uias">wiki.openwrt.org/toh/mikrotik/rb2011uias</a><br>
> ><br>
> > As you can see from the table, for me it only works
with 0x6f.<br>
> > Chris, for whom both 0x3e and 0x6f work has a rev 2
AR9344. I have<br>
> > a rev 3. AR8327 is rev. 4 on both our routerboards.
No info what rev Matt<br>
> > has, he is the other one reporting that only 0x6f
works.<br>
> ><br>
> > I am also observing some amount of increases in
switch 0 port 0<br>
> > RxBadByte (aka: from CPU to AR8327). It seems to
happen for<br>
> > all type of traffic sent from CPU to switch, eg:
whether i inject it from<br>
> > WiFi or from a 100 Mbps port, and whether i send it
out<br>
> > on an untagged port (lan) or tagged one (from CPU,
Wan).<br>
><br>
> I'm under the impression that some of the "OK/Not OK"
reports are based on ping packet loss which provides limited
insight into actual throughput. My results with a
RB2011UiAS-IN (no WiFi, empty SFP cage, AR9344 Rev. 2, CPU @
600MHz powered from the DC-in jack) on patched 15.05:<br>
><br>
> 0x06000000 (Unpatched)<br>
> No TCP/IP 2-way connection [Not OK]<br>
><br>
> ======<br>
><br>
> 0x3e000000<br>
> (MikroTik Eth1 -> laptop, crossover cable)<br>
> /bin/bash -c "dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1000 | netcat
192.168.1.101 7777"<br>
> 1000+0 records in<br>
> 1000+0 records out<br>
> 1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 1589.44 s, 660 kB/s
[Not OK]<br>
><br>
> (laptop -> MikroTik Eth1, crossover cable)<br>
> dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1000 | nc 192.168.1.121 7777<br>
> 1000+0 records in<br>
> 1000+0 records out<br>
> 1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 49.6707 s, 21.1 MB/s
[OK]<br>
><br>
> ======<br>
><br>
> 0x6f000000<br>
> (MikroTik Eth1 -> laptop, crossover cable)<br>
> /bin/bash -c "dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1000 | netcat
192.168.<br>
> 1.101 7777"<br>
> 1000+0 records in<br>
> 1000+0 records out<br>
> 1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 176.224 s, 6.0 MB/s
[OK?]<br>
><br>
> (laptop -> MikroTik Eth1, crossover cable)<br>
> dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1000 | nc 192.168.1.121 7777<br>
> 1000+0 records in<br>
> 1000+0 records out<br>
> 1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 50.7454 s, 20.7 MB/s
[OK]<br>
><br>
><br>
> Any word on the bootloader patch? Happy to test more
values as needed.<br>
><br>
> Sincerely,<br>
> George<br>
><br>
><br>
> > I have not really identified any noticeable
performance impact from<br>
> > this effect through.<br>
> ><br>
> > Would be nice to hear some logic why 0x6f is the
right value.<br>
> ><br>
> >> From the discussion it looks a bit like trial
and error.<br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> > Cheers<br>
> > Toerless<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> openwrt-devel mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org">openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel">https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> openwrt-devel mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org">openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel">https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel</a><br>
><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>