What are the advantages of mikrotik over a gateway on centos?

Question

System administration

Good day people! Please tell me how strong is the advantage of Mikrotik from the SSR series over the same gateway on centos. With approximately the same average knowledge both there and there,

provided that the centos is on vm

Answer 1

No screw. Well, that is, the lack of a chance to get a system hanging in a hornbeam due to an unrecoverable failure. This reason is not significant if there are always “hands” that can be controlled at least by telephone, preferably with at least a little thinking head attached to them.
If the VM is on a host that is a real server, and not a "server-from-desktop" - the presence of a hardware router will allow you to remotely control the host via KVM.
Everything falls. Once I witnessed how a brand new Dell for half a lemon (in 2013 prices!) lay down during a power outage (and the stupidity of a local admin who connected the upsnik incorrectly). And how he was picked up from Moscow remotely.
I think that the router - router. I lived in this configuration for many years - tyrnet came to the host, the router is the VM on the host. This seemed inconvenient to me, and when the opportunity arose (in the form of RB450G) to jump off, I jumped off. This heroic machine worked for two years without a body in a room where ten thousand cockroaches lived :D...

Answer 2

With average knowledge both there and there, the difference is only in a larger user friendly setting in Mikrotik (Winbox, etc.) and less hardware requirements.
And so there is not much difference - the functionality is comparable.
And by the way, no one bothers Mikrotik x86 or Cloud Router to also run in the VM.
A very convenient option for "covering" the hypervisors themselves and their virtual machines - you create a small virtual machine with Mikrotik on the hypervisor and let all traffic through it.

Answer 3

If there is a place in the infrastructure where to put a separate piece of iron, then you need to put a separate piece of iron.
There is the same analogy as the Gaming PC & Playstation - yes, games are played here and there, but in the second case they are already optimized and tailored for specific hardware. And you don’t have to dance in order to properly raise and hold the environment - you immediately set up the config and go to work, if it falls down - you open a bunch of standard loggers and see what’s there, or it’s stupid enough to look at the state of the LEDs to understand how the piece of iron works.
About the loss of control on the VM, there are also not a thousand diferambs about the soft router and about the hypervisor, the controller of which is located on it and introduced into the domain, and about updating ESXi when a server with a sphere on it
And with a piece of iron at the branch: - "Hello, username. Plug in a laptop with trijik in ETH1 and say a pass from Teamwiver-a"

Answer 4

In terms of server capability is better. More features, flexibility, the ability to customize on debya. Expand and make a backup.

Answer 5

Mikrotik is more reliable
A separate piece of iron
but more difficult to set up and limited

Answer 6

There is no single answer which is better or worse, it is necessary to look at the needs.
For myself, I chose a scheme with Mikrotik CHR at the head office and hEX RB750Gr3 at remote sites. There are not very many users of remote offices. The router copes well with ipsec. If the head office suddenly does not have enough resources, then the virtual machine can always throw processors and memory as needed.
Write a problem, they will offer the best solution. For better or worse, it's like choosing white or black.