Reply
New Member
Posts: 35
Registered: ‎08-29-2013
Kudos: 26

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

CRS226 CPU is the same speed as the little 750 series routers. Cheapest 10gig capable switch I've seen yet, but ignore the router part unless you really don't care about speed.

I'd also like to see something similar, 10g SPF+ seems to be on the edge of becoming affordable.
Veteran Member
Posts: 4,978
Registered: ‎03-12-2011
Kudos: 2453
Solutions: 120

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models


spinkham wrote:
CRS226 CPU is the same speed as the little 750 series routers. Cheapest 10gig capable switch I've seen yet, but ignore the router part unless you really don't care about speed.

Yeah I figured that would be the case, but I don't know what switch chip is in use, so there may be some layer3 functionality that can occur on the switch chip rather than the CPU. Anything that hits the CPU will be hella slow of course though.

SuperUser
Posts: 21,743
Registered: ‎11-20-2011
Kudos: 7844
Solutions: 233

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models


spinkham wrote:
CRS226 CPU is the same speed as the little 750 series routers. Cheapest 10gig capable switch I've seen yet, but ignore the router part unless you really don't care about speed.

I'd also like to see something similar, 10g SPF+ seems to be on the edge of becoming affordable.

It's actually the same CPU that is in the RB2011.



isp builder | linux sorcerer | datacenter automation conjurer | blog: blog.engineered.online
link to our slack channel on the blog
Established Member
Posts: 1,367
Registered: ‎05-15-2013
Kudos: 551
Solutions: 18

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

Yes, I know this isn't the ToughSwitch forum...but we really need higher port count tough switches...or really ANY sign of life in the ToughSwitch line. New Features? New Products?

New Member
Posts: 35
Registered: ‎08-29-2013
Kudos: 26

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

[ Edited ]

Josh_SPITwSPOTS wrote:

It's actually the same CPU that is in the RB2011.


That's true, but it has the lower clockspeed of the 750 series.  Quoted performace numbers between 750GL and 2011iL-iN indicate only the 1.5x performance difference we would expect based on the clock speed difference alone, so I don't think there's any substantial architectual difference between the two.

SuperUser
Posts: 21,743
Registered: ‎11-20-2011
Kudos: 7844
Solutions: 233

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models


spinkham wrote:

Josh_SPITwSPOTS wrote:

It's actually the same CPU that is in the RB2011.


That's true, but it has the lower clockspeed of the 750 series.  Quoted performace numbers between 750GL and 2011iL-iN indicate only the 1.5x performance difference we would expect based on the clock speed difference alone, so I don't think there's any substantial architectual difference between the two.


@spinkham That's incorrect.

http://routerboard.com/RB750 400MHz AR7241-AH1A

http://routerboard.com/RB750GL 400MHz AR7242-AH1A

http://routerboard.com/RB2011UiAS-IN 600MHz AR9344-BC2A, and see screenshot:

cpu-selector.png

http://routerboard.com/CRS125-24G-1S-RM 600MHz AR9344-DC3A-R 



isp builder | linux sorcerer | datacenter automation conjurer | blog: blog.engineered.online
link to our slack channel on the blog
New Member
Posts: 35
Registered: ‎08-29-2013
Kudos: 26

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models


Josh_SPITwSPOTS wrote:

spinkham wrote:

Josh_SPITwSPOTS wrote:

It's actually the same CPU that is in the RB2011.


That's true, but it has the lower clockspeed of the 750 series.  Quoted performace numbers between 750GL and 2011iL-iN indicate only the 1.5x performance difference we would expect based on the clock speed difference alone, so I don't think there's any substantial architectual difference between the two.


@spinkham That's incorrect.

http://routerboard.com/RB750 400MHz AR7241-AH1A

http://routerboard.com/RB750GL 400MHz AR7242-AH1A

http://routerboard.com/RB2011UiAS-IN 600MHz AR9344-BC2A, and see screenshot:

cpu-selector.png

http://routerboard.com/CRS125-24G-1S-RM 600MHz AR9344-DC3A-R 


We're way off topic now, but too late to stop now I guess. ;-)

 

Everything you liked to is interesting, but CRS226-24G-2s+IN is what we were discussing and that is clearly listed at 400Mhz, slower than other members of the series. http://routerboard.com/CRS226-24G-2SplusIN 

SuperUser
Posts: 21,743
Registered: ‎11-20-2011
Kudos: 7844
Solutions: 233

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models


spinkham wrote:

Josh_SPITwSPOTS wrote:

spinkham wrote:

Josh_SPITwSPOTS wrote:

It's actually the same CPU that is in the RB2011.


That's true, but it has the lower clockspeed of the 750 series.  Quoted performace numbers between 750GL and 2011iL-iN indicate only the 1.5x performance difference we would expect based on the clock speed difference alone, so I don't think there's any substantial architectual difference between the two.


@spinkham That's incorrect.

http://routerboard.com/RB750 400MHz AR7241-AH1A

http://routerboard.com/RB750GL 400MHz AR7242-AH1A

http://routerboard.com/RB2011UiAS-IN 600MHz AR9344-BC2A, and see screenshot:

cpu-selector.png

http://routerboard.com/CRS125-24G-1S-RM 600MHz AR9344-DC3A-R 


We're way off topic now, but too late to stop now I guess. ;-)

 

Everything you liked to is interesting, but CRS226-24G-2s+IN is what we were discussing and that is clearly listed at 400Mhz, slower than other members of the series. http://routerboard.com/CRS226-24G-2SplusIN 


Oops, my bad. I thought the 125 was in the same product line as the 226. :[ You are correct. 400MHz QCA8519-AC2C, which is very low IMO. I don't understand why they are gimping the SFP+ product the way they are.



isp builder | linux sorcerer | datacenter automation conjurer | blog: blog.engineered.online
link to our slack channel on the blog
Emerging Member
Posts: 89
Registered: ‎07-03-2013
Kudos: 16
Solutions: 1

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

2 x 10g SFP+
2 x 1g SFP
6 x 1g rj45
rackmount
dual redundant psu
all real ports
serial console
2g RAM memory
user replaceable internal storage
400-500 USD

Established Member
Posts: 762
Registered: ‎03-28-2013
Kudos: 230
Solutions: 28

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

[ Edited ]

Personally I think more time and money should be spent on the software before new hardware models are released.

A real UI is badly needed, calling it beyond bad is being kind. Man Sad

Coming from the Unifi system to the Edgemax system, wow.

Having the CLI for configuring is fine, but it needs a real UI.

Want to know what the minimums would be, look at Gargoyle which is very bare bones, then TomatoUSB, it should be atleast capable of those UI config options. And those two examples don't do that much.

SuperUser
Posts: 21,743
Registered: ‎11-20-2011
Kudos: 7844
Solutions: 233

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models


JimBob wrote:

Personally I think more time and money should be spent on the software before new hardware models are released.

A real UI is badly needed, calling it beyond bad is being kind. Man Sad

Coming from the Unifi system to the Edgemax system, wow.

Having the CLI for configuring is fine, but it needs a real UI.

Want to know what the minimums would be, look at Gargoyle which is very bare bones, then TomatoUSB, it should be atleast capable of those UI config options. And those two examples don't do that much.


Kind of the background of EdgeOS is that it was birthed by a "real router" style OS, where a GUI is doing nothing but hogging excess cycles that could be routing packets, or encapsulating tunnels, or performing ntp or dns lookups.



isp builder | linux sorcerer | datacenter automation conjurer | blog: blog.engineered.online
link to our slack channel on the blog
Veteran Member
Posts: 4,978
Registered: ‎03-12-2011
Kudos: 2453
Solutions: 120

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

While I agree that there's still lots of room for improvement on the software side, I personally think that the GUI should really be one of the lowest priorities because hey, you can always learn the CLI and do it that way instead and get the featureset.

Meanwhile stuff like VRF, MPLS, etc you physically cannot do in GUI or CLI. One is a real limitation, the other (ie, a feature not being in the GUI) is just a soft limitation in that the user needs more experience to achieve something. We're in the IT business, these devices really aren't designed for your average consumer user (what use would they have for ospf/bgp/tunnels/etc?), and even then the more basic concepts can be done in the GUI already today.

There reaches a point where even if you had a GUI, you'd still need to understand the actual features you're using or you're not going to be able to do it anyway. Think BGP and complex route filtering - sure it could be added into the GUI - but should someone who doesn't actually know about BGP to be able to set it up correctly? Nope... and anyone who can is going to be comfortable with the GUI anyway...

On the flip side, the good news is that there's apparently a dedicated GUI person for EdgeMAX nowadays, seperate from the two main guys who do the software, and I'd imagine the hardware guys are going to be mostly seperate again as well (although I could be wrong) - so this really is one of those unique cases where we can both have our cake and eat it - working on hardware isn't stalling software, and software isn't stalling GUI, or vice versa. Man Happy

SuperUser
Posts: 40,005
Registered: ‎06-23-2009
Kudos: 7887
Solutions: 1294

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

[ Edited ]

I don't agree at all.

I'm tired of products where retro engineers fail to
provide modern tools to get the job done. Microsoft
is infamous for providing most of the important deep
internal and diagnostic tools as CLI only. (Look at
'commands' like NETSTAT for example.)

My job is to implement a solution--not to learn yet
another arcane toolset. That's why I don't get very
excited about EdgeMax products yet. If I want to
do VPN, I want VPN--not a whole page of commands
I will never use again. I want it to be clear, obvious
and with industry-standard fields and labels.

It's not my problem to 'preserve' processing speed
by avoiding a GUI; if the maker needs more processing
power, put it in. Processing is cheap, and there are
specialized chips to handle the actual data path.

Magic codes in magic sequences just to get decent
performance from underpowered equipment is so 1950's.
I want the computer to take the burden--not me. My
time and focus are worth more than a few chips.

We don't need yet another Mikrotik.   Dave


> HQ in Seacoast region New Hampshire U.S.A.
> Ubiquiti Certified Trainer [UCT] for:
     UBWA [AirMax] / UEWA [UniFi] / UBRSS [routers]
UBNT.NH@gmail.com
Member
Posts: 141
Registered: ‎06-25-2012
Kudos: 39

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

Idea's for Edgemax:

1. Addition of insertable modules for DSL, Cable Modems, and 10Gig cards. Dual module version?

2. Addition of POE port, to provide power to the edgemax.

Not sure if this would be applicable here, but...

Integration of Furman power conditioning, and clean power provided via POE Switch with autosensing. Also, equipment that have POE capabilites that recieve the wrong voltage, ie 48v instead of 24v, should beep, instead of damaging the equipment, in case no autosensing is available.

Veteran Member
Posts: 4,978
Registered: ‎03-12-2011
Kudos: 2453
Solutions: 120

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models


Dave-D wrote:

We don't need yet another Mikrotik.   Dave


You mean another router with a GUI but otherwise rather crap because apparently that's not a high priority feature?

Established Member
Posts: 1,043
Registered: ‎02-17-2014
Kudos: 380
Solutions: 40

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

[ Edited ]

stargatesys wrote:

 

Integration of Furman power conditioning, and clean power provided via POE Switch with autosensing. Also, equipment that have POE capabilites that recieve the wrong voltage, ie 48v instead of 24v, should beep, instead of damaging the equipment, in case no autosensing is available.


POE should be industry standard autosensing, period.

It only takes once for a customer to cook a $2K piece of equipment to say that they should have gone with Cisco, etc. rather than saving a few pennies.  After that, you've lost a customer for life.

.....or you just loose a sale from the start.  I love Ubiquiti, but if I need POE, then it's Cisco where I know it will work with my equipment without question.

Unifi stays on the POE injector it comes with.  I don't feel that I can trust it to work with industry standard equipment and I haven't taken the time to research it any further than that.

Veteran Member
Posts: 4,138
Registered: ‎07-03-2008
Kudos: 1219
Solutions: 95

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

[ Edited ]

CowboyJed wrote:


POE should be industry standard autosensing, period. 


24V passive PoE is a well established standard in the wireless world, and there are good reasons for its continued existence.

 

I love Ubiquiti, but if I need POE, then it's Cisco where I know it will work with my equipment without question.


In that case, buy the Cisco.  We use them where they are the best solution.

 


Unifi stays on the POE injector it comes with.  I don't feel that I can trust it to work with industry standard equipment and I haven't taken the time to research it any further than that.

The UAP models which work with 802.3af and 802.3at are well documented.

Member
Posts: 137
Registered: ‎11-16-2013
Kudos: 55
Solutions: 5

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

The last time I saw some Cavium reps I told them I though you should own the FTTH/FTTN consumer space.
My perception (which may be wrong) is that you could sell in volume whever the carriers have chosen pppoe transport over FTTH/FTTN.   I think most of this in in Europe and Asia right now,

Of course you have to get your GUI and Docs in order, this has been mentioned above, but it doens't have to be exhuastive.   Focus the polish on what the average user needs in these environments.  Dual stack/Dual stack lite via the gui.  Simple pppoe config, and a simple default in -> out SOHO firewall setup.

You could also get some of the carrier side of these rollouts with some EPON gear, but I'm no expert in the ISP space and if you could put together as compelling an offering in that space.

 

 

Established Member
Posts: 1,043
Registered: ‎02-17-2014
Kudos: 380
Solutions: 40

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models

[ Edited ]

mhotel wrote:

CowboyJed wrote:


POE should be industry standard autosensing, period. 


24V passive PoE is a well established standard in the wireless world, and there are good reasons for its continued existence.

 

I love Ubiquiti, but if I need POE, then it's Cisco where I know it will work with my equipment without question.


In that case, buy the Cisco.  We use them where they are the best solution.

 


Unifi stays on the POE injector it comes with.  I don't feel that I can trust it to work with industry standard equipment and I haven't taken the time to research it any further than that.

The UAP models which work with 802.3af and 802.3at are well documented.


It was my understanding, probably incorrectly, that Ubiquiti used non-standard POE configurations.  As I said, I had not researched it further since the UniFis come with a POE injector.  I do love the UniFi platform.

My POE cameras opperate flawlessly on the Cisco switches.  Most of which are 24 port with SFP fiber trunks so EdgeMax really isn't a strong contender for me.  My ERL on the other hand, is a genius creation.  Awesome little router.

Veteran Member
Posts: 4,978
Registered: ‎03-12-2011
Kudos: 2453
Solutions: 120

Re: Requests/suggestions for new hardware models


CowboyJed wrote:

mhotel wrote:

CowboyJed wrote:


POE should be industry standard autosensing, period. 


24V passive PoE is a well established standard in the wireless world, and there are good reasons for its continued existence.

 

I love Ubiquiti, but if I need POE, then it's Cisco where I know it will work with my equipment without question.


In that case, buy the Cisco.  We use them where they are the best solution.

 


Unifi stays on the POE injector it comes with.  I don't feel that I can trust it to work with industry standard equipment and I haven't taken the time to research it any further than that.

The UAP models which work with 802.3af and 802.3at are well documented.


It was my understanding, probably incorrectly, that Ubiquiti used non-standard POE configurations.  As I said, I had not researched it further since the UniFis come with a POE injector.  I do love the UniFi platform.

My POE cameras opperate flawlessly on the Cisco switches.  Most of which are 24 port with SFP fiber trunks so EdgeMax really isn't a strong contender for me.  My ERL on the other hand, is a genius creation.  Awesome little router.


Pretty much all the 48V PoE devices are standard 802.3af/802.3at (the only notable exception that I'm aware of is airFibre which is not compliant as it needs to draw 50W which is higher than the standards allow for, so they do some funky stuff). There is no standard for 24V PoE, so they're just passive, but common with pretty much every other 24V PoE too.

Reply