今日已更新 148 条资讯 | 累计 41368 条内容
关于我们

标签:#c

找到 32922 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

China claims the world’s fastest supercomputer

Despite trade restrictions, China has reclaimed the title of the world's fastest supercomputer for the first time since 2018. LineShine has pushed El Capitan out of number one on the TOP500 ranking. That's despite strict limits on what high-powered computing components can be sold to China by US firms, which dominate the list, with America […]

2026-06-29 原文 →
开发者

Show HN: DRM-Free Books

After several years of mandatory DRM lockdowns from most commercial book sources, now authors have a choice when it comes to DRM for their books. Pick authors and books that are DRM-free, or download DRM-free classics that are out of copyright. https://frequal.com/Perspectives/DrmFreeAuthors.html

2026-06-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Show HN: Unobin compiles Infrastructure as Code to one binary

Unobin is a language and compiler for Infrastructure as Code (IaC). IaC source is written and compiled to a binary, called a factory. The factory includes the runtime and all dependencies. To run a factory, pass it a configuration called a stack file that defines backend state and factory inputs. The stack file can only contain configuration, not arbitrary code. Factories can also display a UI in a browser showing progress (animated screenshot in the docs).

2026-06-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Idempotency Keys for Social Automation: Never Double-Post on a Timeout

A scheduled post fires. The request to publish it goes out. The network hangs. After 30 seconds, our client times out. We retry. The tweet publishes. Then the original request completes too — and a second, identical tweet goes out. That's a double-post. On a personal account it's embarrassing. On a client account at an agency it's a support ticket and a credibility hit. Either way, it's the single most visible failure mode in any posting system, and it's caused by one of the most common conditions in distributed systems: ambiguous outcomes under timeout. At HelperX , we ship scheduled posts, replies, and DMs across hundreds of accounts. Every one of those actions can time out, retry, and double-execute. This article is about how we prevent that with idempotency keys — the same pattern payment systems use to prevent double-charges, applied to social actions. The problem, precisely A timeout is ambiguous. When a publish request times out, the action is in one of three states: Never reached the server. The post didn't publish. Safe to retry. Reached the server, failed there. The post didn't publish. Safe to retry. Reached the server, succeeded, response lost. The post did publish. Retrying publishes it again. The client cannot distinguish states 1 and 2 from state 3. They all look identical: "I sent a request and didn't get a response." Naive retry logic treats all three the same and retries — which is correct for 1 and 2 but catastrophic for 3. This is the classic "exactly-once is impossible" problem. You can't guarantee an action executes exactly once over an unreliable network. But you can guarantee it takes effect exactly once, using idempotency. The idempotency key idea An idempotency key is a unique identifier the client generates before sending the request and includes with it. The server uses the key to recognize a retry and avoid re-executing: First request with key K → server executes, stores "K succeeded, result was R." Retry with same key K → server sees K

2026-06-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

Kafka Partitioning Strategies: How to Get It Right Before It Costs You

Most engineers don't think seriously about Kafka partitioning until something breaks in production. A topic that worked fine at low volume starts falling behind. Events that should be in order aren't. All of it traces back to a partitioning decision that was made quickly and never revisited. Why Partitioning Actually Matters Partitions are the unit of parallelism in Kafka. Every consumer in a group is assigned one or more partitions, and it processes those partitions alone. No two consumers in the same group share a partition. That means your partition count sets a hard ceiling on how many consumers can work in parallel: if you have 6 partitions, the 7th consumer in your group sits idle no matter how much load you're under. Partitioning also controls ordering. Within a single partition, events are strictly ordered. Across partitions, there are no guarantees. So how you distribute events across partitions determines what ordering guarantees your consumers can actually rely on. Get this wrong and you'll spend a long time debugging why events from the same user are being processed out of sequence. The partition key controls both of these things. It determines which partition an event lands in, and that decision has consequences that are expensive to reverse. Partitioning Strategies Partition by Key This is the most common strategy and the right default when ordering matters. You supply a key when producing an event, Kafka hashes it using the murmur2 algorithm, and takes the modulo against the partition count to decide where it lands. producer . send ( ' orders ' , key = b ' user_4821 ' , value = event ) Every event with the same key always lands in the same partition. That's what guarantees ordering within a key. All events for user_4821 go to partition 3 (or wherever the hash resolves), and your consumer reads them in the exact sequence they were produced. I default to this for almost everything I build now and only go keyless when I have a specific reason to. Use key

2026-06-28 原文 →