Is anyone currently using an MX600 in production? I'm wondering what the difference in performance is like from an MX400. Aside from the client threshold, are there many other advantages?
We have the 600, we had the 400 as a warm spare and I think the 600 was marginally faster, but not a night and day difference no. We've since upgraded to another 600 as a warm spare. I think the biggest difference to us was VPN Users said the 600 was faster than the 400 when we tested.
Thanks @NFL0NR, great info to know. We have a lot of VPN users and they do often complain about slow connections.
Are you running NAT mode or concentrator?
How many remote sites do you have VPN'd in though the MX600?
@NFL0NR wrote:We have the 600, we had the 400 as a warm spare and I think the 600 was marginally faster, but not a night and day difference no. We've since upgraded to another 600 as a warm spare. I think the biggest difference to us was VPN Users said the 600 was faster than the 400 when we tested.
I was always curious what the difference in CPU was from the 400 to 600, or if they were arbitrary limits. From a glance I always thought the main difference was the 4x1tb HDDs, which, in this day of dynamic web content, isn't real useful.
I have two MX600's in production in warm spare mode. These are used for firewall/NAT for ~20,000 users/10,000 devices. In total the upstream bandwidth is 4Gbps. We also do two site-to-site VPN tunnels, one is Meraki and the other is an ASA. Plenty of client VPN connections too without and problems.
If you want to do a real world speedtest through my MXen, here you go: readingsd.speedtest.net
@MRCUR wrote:I have two MX600's in production in warm spare mode. These are used for firewall/NAT for ~20,000 users/10,000 devices. In total the upstream bandwidth is 4Gbps. We also do two site-to-site VPN tunnels, one is Meraki and the other is an ASA. Plenty of client VPN connections too without and problems.
If you want to do a real world speedtest through my MXen, here you go: readingsd.speedtest.net
Just for fun, I tried it.
From my corporate office, 100/100 fiber via Spectrum and an MX84: http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6561802911
From one of my sites, 150/150 fiber via ATT and an MX100: http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6561806710 (weird low upload...doing to a server in California almost maxes it out)
There's probably some awful peering between AT&T and Comcast along the way that's causing the very slow upload.
@MRCUR wrote:There's probably some awful peering between AT&T and Comcast along the way that's causing the very slow upload.
Bad peering on either ATT or Comcast? Say it isn't so! /s
All joking aside, we're actually quite pleased with the ATT fiber. It routes well internationally as well normally, and has been stable as a rock. Plus they gave us a ridiculous amount of IPv4, and a monstrosity of a Cisco ISR for an Ethernet handoff.
Comcast EDI has been really nice for us. Very fast routing to Netflix, Apple's CDN, etc. which is great for our use (K-12). We're adding a second circuit later this week that will go to Hurricane Electric.