今日已更新 386 条资讯 | 累计 20358 条内容
关于我们

标签:#load

找到 44 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

The Download: AI bottleneck debates, and BCI trials take off

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. A startup claims it broke through a bottleneck that’s holding back LLMs AI startup Subquadratic came out of stealth last month with a huge claim: it had solved a mathematical bottleneck…

2026-06-19 原文 →
AI 资讯

How I Built the Two Missing Payload CMS v3 Plugins — Reviews, JSON-LD & Real Production Bugs

Running 23 European e-commerce shops on Payload CMS v3 taught me that some things simply don't exist yet. So I built them. Background I maintain a multi-clone e-commerce infrastructure — 23 Next.js + Payload CMS v3 shops deployed across Europe, each on its own subdomain and language. Think fr.myshop.com , de.myshop.com , sk.myshop.com ... all running on the same codebase with country-specific patches. While building this, I kept running into two missing pieces that no one had published for Payload v3: A customer reviews system with admin moderation and Google star ratings Complete Schema.org JSON-LD for Google rich snippets (Product, BreadcrumbList, ItemList, AggregateRating) Both are now published on npm. Here's what I built, the bugs I hit, and how I solved them. Part 1 — The Reviews Plugin What didn't exist Search npm for payload reviews or payload ratings — you'll find nothing for v3. The official plugin ecosystem covers SEO, forms, redirects, Stripe... but not customer reviews. Building the collection The reviews collection itself is straightforward — relationship to products , rating (1-5), status select (pending/approved/rejected), author fields. The tricky parts came later. Access control gotcha: Payload v3 uses a roles array, not a role string. This breaks if you copy v2 patterns: // ❌ Wrong — always returns false update : ({ req }) => req . user ?. role === ' admin ' , // ✅ Correct for v3 update : ({ req }) => req . user ?. roles ?. includes ( ' admin ' ), Prevent self-verification: Users can POST any field on create: () => true collections. Lock verified in a beforeChange hook: hooks : { beforeChange : [ ({ data }) => { if ( ! data . status ) data . status = ' pending ' data . verified = false // admin-only, always reset on create return data }, ], }, Email protection: read: () => true on the collection exposes authorEmail in the public API. Add field-level access: { name : ' authorEmail ' , type : ' email ' , access : { read : ({ req }) => req . user ?.

2026-06-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

A load balancer inspired by how Emperor Penguins survive Antarctic winters

Why I modeled a load balancer after Emperor Penguin huddles A few months ago I was reading about how emperor penguins survive Antarctic winters. Temperature drops to -40°C, wind hits 120km/h, and somehow these birds make it through. Not because they're individually tough. Because they rotate. Cold penguins on the outside push inward. Warm ones from the center move out to rest. Nobody coordinates this. No penguin is in charge. It emerges from one simple rule: if you're cold, push in. If you're warm, you'll get pushed out eventually. I couldn't stop thinking about this. I was working on a service mesh at the time and dealing with the usual problem — one slow server quietly dragging down the whole cluster. Round robin doesn't care. Least connections helps but not always. Weighted approaches need manual tuning that goes stale immediately. The penguin thing kept nagging at me. What if servers had a "temperature"? What if hot servers rotated out to rest? That's HuddleCluster. The basic structure Two rings: Inner ring (deque): Active servers. Requests go to them round-robin. Simple, fair, zero overhead for normal traffic. Outer ring (min-heap): Resting servers. Keyed by temperature — coolest server sits at the top, ready to rotate back in first. When a server in the inner ring runs hot past a threshold, it moves out. When an outer ring server cools down, it comes back in. That's the entire rotation logic. About 50 lines of Python. What is "temperature"? This took me a while to get right. My first attempt was just raw latency. That was bad. A server handling one slow database query looks terrible even when it's completely healthy. I needed something more composed. Current formula: pythontemperature = EMA( 0.7 * relative_latency_anomaly + 0.1 * cpu_score + 0.1 * memory_score + 0.1 * (error_rate + connection_score) ) Three decisions here worth explaining. EMA over simple moving average EMA weights recent measurements more heavily. If a server just had a bad spike but recovere

2026-06-15 原文 →
AI 资讯

The Download: cutting AC emissions, and nature’s drug designer

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. These new solid-state ACs promise a cool future. Scientists aren’t so sure. After three years of record-­breaking heat and another scorcher underway, air-conditioning isn’t going anywhere. That’s good for our health,…

2026-06-15 原文 →
AI 资讯

The Download: the “steroid olympics” and a safer Mythos

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. The “steroid olympics” were a circus—and a window into our culture —Amit Katwala A couple of weeks ago, at a $50 million arena built in a casino parking lot in Las…

2026-06-10 原文 →
AI 资讯

Part 3: Ignoring Think Time Between Requests

Hey, welcome back. Last time we talked about missing parameterization in test scenarios. Today's mistake is similar in spirit. The test runs. The numbers look great. But what you've built isn't a load test. It's a hammer. ⚠️ The script works. The test is inhuman. Real users don't fire requests like a machine gun. They log in. They pause. They read. They click. They pause again. A typical user journey that takes 60 seconds in real life? Without think time, your script does it in just a few seconds. What this breaks Your throughput numbers are fiction. If users complete journeys 30x faster than reality, your RPS is inflated by 30x. You're not measuring capacity — you're measuring endurance under abuse. You stress the wrong things. Realistic concurrency surfaces real bottlenecks. A firehose of instant requests just overloads your connection pool and calls it a day. Production behaves nothing like your test. Because real users think. Your script didn't. 🛠 The fix Add randomized pauses between steps. Every major tool supports it: JMeter: Gaussian Random Timer, Uniform Random Timer etc. k6: sleep(Math.random() * 5 + 3) Gatling: pause(3.seconds, 8.seconds) Locust: time.sleep(random.uniform(3, 8)) 3–8 seconds between actions is a reasonable starting point. Check your analytics for what real sessions actually look like. Before your next run: Pauses between every major action? Randomized, not fixed? Does the timing feel human? If not — you're not testing load. You're testing collapse. Think time is one piece of the puzzle. But realistic load modeling goes deeper — it's about understanding how real users behave, how to translate that into a load profile, and how to design a test that actually reflects production. That's not something you patch with a timer. It's something you build from the ground up. If you want to understand the full system — from load model design to test execution to results that mean something — that's exactly what Performance Testing Fundamentals course

2026-06-09 原文 →
AI 资讯

The Download: AI can run your admin department now

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. How small businesses can leverage AI From accounting to design to market research and product development, there’s a staggering breadth of skills needed to run a business. Large companies can hire…

2026-06-02 原文 →
AI 资讯

The Download: China’s brain implant ambitions

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. China has approved the world’s first invasive brain-computer chip—here’s what’s next Sitting in the courtyard of his house in China’s Henan province last October, Dong Hui decided to try holding a…

2026-06-01 原文 →
AI 资讯

The Download: unlocking lithium and controlling Ebola

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. How a new extraction process could unlock the world’s lithium A new method for extracting lithium could cut costs and emissions from one of the world’s most important materials for EVs…

2026-05-29 原文 →