I recently bought 2 RB333s (3.0RC10 and no miniPCI) to bond 2 local loops (each via 10Mbps full duplex metro ethernet).
I did some tests before installing them on the network. I tried to simulate 2 10Mbps links and forced both ethernet to 10Mbps full duplex with auto-negotiation off.
Here is how I did my simulation.. I created a balance-rr bonding interface for both ethernet and ran 2 tests (FTP and MT's bandwidth test) with ping continuously running while the tests were running. Performance was very poor when I ran the tests, i.e. lots of RTOs and the transfer speed was very unstable. I tried adding EoIP on top of each ethernet and apply bonding on the EoIPs instead, but that made the performance even worse. I noticed that the CPU usage on both RB333 was not reaching 100%, it wasn't even close so I guessed it has nothing to do with insufficient hardware resources. When I used FTP to test, I was only able to get approx 3000Kbps spread across both ethernet; however when I used MT's bandwidth test, it gave me better throughput. Both tests yielded quite a few RTOs on my continuous ping while they were running.
After my initial tests didn't go as expected, I tried a different scenario. I changed the ethernet settings to 100Mbps full duplex with auto-negotiation on and ran the same tests again. It was capable of delivering 100Mbps full duplex on the bonding interface via both ethernet (each at approx 48Mbps). My continuous ping didn't show any RTO but rather only increased latency (even occasional RTO every once in a while is expected). If it were caused by insufficient hardware power, it wouldn't give such an excellent result when both ethernet are set at 100Mbps full duplex. 10Mbps is one-tenth of 100Mbps and surely that uses less resources, so that doesn't make sense. I believe it has something to do with a bug in the RouterOS.
I hope that the cause of this problem can be located very soon and be fixed immediately since I really need to make use of both my 10Mbps links ASAP.
Have anyone else encountered similar problems? I can't compare the results with RouterOS 2.9 since I just own these 2 RB333s.