cardoso_tiago / hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>

Thanks for the followup, I'm glad we were able to help.

> I think this one is fixed. If I could complain about
> something, was that the error message wasn't very helpful. But
> I can't come up with a better one. 

*shrug* I can't think of one right now...

> So, after I found that out, I noticed something really
> strange: Using the `IO#read_nonblock(nread, buffer, exception:
> false)` reduces the throughput of my solution significantly
> (it also uses up significantly more memory). When using both
> `IO#read_nonblock(nread, exception: false)` and
> `IO#read_nonblock(nread, buffer)`, I get optimal performance. 

It seems you've figured that out in in [ruby-core:82707],
but I think my earlier note about using thread-local storage
for short-lived buffers still applies.  Per-socket buffers
(which you seem to be using) would use more object slots in
common situations.

> This might be a bit off-topic. Should I open a new ticket with my findings?

Not speaking for ruby-core, but I don't care for assigning
tickets/classifications/priorities/etc and prefer a more
freeform approach.

(But then again, I hate Genre tags in my music collection
 and nuke them at every opportunity)

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>