标签：#r

Hermes Memory Installer, a tool designed to streamline memory allocation in distributed systems, recently received a critical update: a fix that ensures alerts are raised when the host experiences resource pressure. This improvement is vital for maintaining system stability and preventing cascading failures. In this post, we'll explore the details of this fix, its implementation, and its significance for experienced developers managing memory-intensive workloads. Understanding Host Resource Pressure In distributed environments, resource pressure occurs when the host system is constrained—high CPU load, low available memory, or excessive I/O. For tools like Hermes Memory Installer, which allocate and manage memory across nodes, ignoring host pressure can lead to OOM kills, throttling, or degraded performance. Before this fix, the installer lacked proactive alerting, leaving operators unaware of critical conditions until it was too late. This update directly addresses that gap. The Fix: Alert on Host Resource Pressure The recent update introduces a monitoring layer that continuously evaluates host metrics. When resource pressure thresholds are exceeded, the installer raises an alert, enabling operators to take immediate action. The fix is not just about detection; it integrates seamlessly with existing logging and monitoring infrastructure, ensuring alerts are visible in centralized systems. Key aspects of the fix: Continuous monitoring of memory usage, CPU load, and I/O metrics. Configurable thresholds to match specific hardware or workload requirements. Alerts emitted via syslog or custom handlers, supporting integration with tools like Prometheus or PagerDuty. Implementation Details The core of the fix is a lightweight monitoring module that runs alongside the installer. Here's a simplified example of how it might work: import psutil import logging class ResourceMonitor : def __init__ ( self , memory_threshold = 0.85 , cpu_threshold = 90 ): self . memory_threshold

It's easy to reach for the popular tool before asking what your system actually needs. For job queueing, the usual advice is to use RabbitMQ or Kafka. The underlying burden of using these tools will be additional processes to deploy, monitor and reason about. But what if using your existing database is possible? I built a job queueing system with a PostgreSQL database that cleared the bar without adding infrastructure. The next question will be, does this solution meet the criteria of a job queue? A job needs a few things to execute properly within a system. It needs to be persistent, surviving unforeseen crashes. Jobs must not be processed more than once by workers; one job should be processed once by one worker. Also, a job's state has to be tracked through every step. A job state must show when it's pending, completed or failed. That's the bar any solution must clear. With the Postgres approach, persistence comes free. Jobs live in a table so when a worker dies mid-job, the job still exists in a row in the db. Whereas with in-memory queues, a crash loses everything still in memory. A broker like RabbitMQ has to be configured for persistence and if configured wrongly, jobs get lost. A database however is fundamentally built for durability. Now, let's say three workers poll the queue at the same instant and run the same query. They'll see the same pending job at the top and nothing stops them all from grabbing it. If that job is a payment, the customer gets charged three times for one service. All the workers successfully process the job with no indication of an error or alerts. This is the requirement that seems to demand a real message broker, and it's exactly where people assume a database can't compete. It can. Postgres has a specific tool for exactly this. The SQL clause FOR UPDATE is used to lock rows. This can be called on a job when a worker picks it up to process. By default other workers will get blocked during this process, they'll wait for the lock to r

Overview This guide shows you how to fix a critical Azure App Service configuration issue where the keyVaultReferenceIdentity property is hidden from the Azure Portal but required for accessing Key Vault secrets. Symptoms Developers encountering this issue typically observe: Key Vault references returning empty values instead of secret content Configuration entries showing "Not Resolved" error messages Application settings failing to fetch secret values from Key Vault Authentication errors when attempting to access protected secrets 401/403 errors from App Service attempting to validate Key Vault access Why This Happens Azure App Service uses Managed Identity authentication to access Key Vault secrets, but the keyVaultReferenceIdentity property is deliberately hidden from standard Azure Portal interfaces. This property only exists at the Azure Resource Manager (ARM) level, making it invisible through the typical Azure management UI. Technical Architecture App Service → Managed Identity → Azure AD → Key Vault Access Policy → Secret Store App Service attempts to authenticate using its assigned Managed Identity Azure needs explicit permission through the keyVaultReferenceIdentity property This permission exists only in the underlying ARM configuration Without this configuration, the authentication chain breaks Key Vault references resolve to empty values or error messages Why Portal Visibility is Limited Microsoft implements this design choice for several reasons: Security : Keeps identity-to-Key Vault mappings out of standard management interfaces Simplicity : Prevents accidental misconfigurations that could cause security issues Audit Trail : Ensures all identity configurations go through proper change management Resource Provider : Some properties require ARM-level configuration for consistency Prerequisites Required Azure Resources Azure Subscription : Active subscription with appropriate permissions Azure App Service : Existing Linux or Windows App Service User-As

The moment you add a code quality gate to CI, something quietly changes on your team. Developers stop arguing about code style in reviews because the robot handles it. Static-analysis errors stop reaching production because they can't pass the gate. You stop inheriting other people's technical debt because new errors are blocked immediately, even if old ones exist. That last point is the PHPStan baseline trick. We'll get to it. The Code Quality Job This job runs on every push and is intentionally fast — no database, no migrations, just PHP and a vendor folder: quality: name: Code Quality runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - uses: actions/checkout@v4 - name: Setup PHP 8.4 uses: shivammathur/setup-php@v2 with: php-version: '8.4' extensions: mbstring, pdo, bcmath, zip, intl coverage: none tools: composer:v2 - name: Cache Composer dependencies uses: actions/cache@v4 with: path: api/vendor key: php-8.4-composer-${{ hashFiles('api/composer.lock') }} restore-keys: php-8.4-composer- - name: Install dependencies run: composer install --no-interaction --prefer-dist --no-progress - name: Check formatting (Laravel Pint) run: ./vendor/bin/pint --test - name: Static analysis (PHPStan) run: ./vendor/bin/phpstan analyse --memory-limit=2G --no-progress pint --test runs in read-only mode — it checks without modifying files. Exit code 1 if any file has style drift. Run ./vendor/bin/pint locally (without --test ) to auto-fix before pushing. Configuring PHPStan Add a phpstan.neon to your API root: parameters: level: 8 paths: - app - Modules excludePaths: - vendor ignoreErrors: - identifier: missingType.iterableValue - identifier: missingType.generics Level 8 is strict. On a fresh project, aim for it from day one. On an existing codebase, start at level 4 and raise it gradually. The Memory Problem PHPStan at level 8 on a large codebase needs more than 512MB of RAM. Use --memory-limit=2G in CI. Locally, add a shortcut to composer.json : "scripts": { "analyse": "php -d memory_limit=2G vendor/bi

I run a public board that probes 16 LLMs on a frozen 35-task suite, once a day, and keeps every score. When a model drops against its previous run, it opens a GitHub issue by itself and writes me a draft post. Between 21 and 24 July it did that four times: 23 Jul Gemini 3.5 Flash -11.4 pts 24 Jul Gemini 3.1 Pro -2.9 pts 21 Jul Grok 4.3 -5.7 pts 22 Jul Llama 3.3 70B -2.9 pts Four regressions in four days, across three labs. That's a post that writes itself, and it would have been fast, legible, and wrong. None of those models got worse. Here's how I know, because the how is the only part worth reading. Two of them weren't the model Every point on the board carries a second number next to accuracy: reliability , the share of probe calls that actually came back. Look at the two Google alerts with that column showing: gemini-3.5-flash 22 Jul acc 1.000 reliability 1.000 23 Jul acc 0.886 reliability 0.914 <- "-11.4 pts" gemini-3.1-pro 22 Jul acc 0.914 reliability 0.943 23 Jul acc 0.886 reliability 0.914 <- "-2.9 pts" 24 Jul acc 0.971 reliability 1.000 <- next clean run Accuracy and reliability fell together. That's the signature of calls that never returned, not answers that got worse — a failed call has no answer to grade, and an ungraded task scores the same as a wrong one. I know this signature well because this board already published the lesson. On 20 July, Llama 3.3 70B appeared to fall 66 points overnight: api.groq.com -> 429: Rate limit reached for model ` llama-3.3-70b-versatile ` service tier `on_demand` ... requests per minute (RPM): Limit 30, Used 30 34 of 35 calls were rate-limited. The model didn't get dumber; a 429 scored as a zero. A rate limit scoring as a 0% is the single most misleading thing a drift tracker can do, because it looks exactly like the thing the tracker exists to catch. Gemini 3.1 Pro settles its own case: the next clean run came back at 97.1%, higher than before the "regression." The other two were one question The remaining two alerts ar

1. Introduction Hello from Japan! 🇯🇵 I am an active truck driver in Japan self-studying Python and Web technologies, leveraging my logistics domain knowledge to transition into a Web Engineer. (English is my second language, but I'm excited to share my progress with developers worldwide!) I started my learning journey on May 12, 2026. As of June 4, I have logged 24 days and 86 cumulative hours of study. This article documents my progress, learning roadmap, and project milestones chronologically. Check out my GitHub here👈️ (Note: Most repository documentation and commit messages are currently in Japanese.) 2. The 86-Hour Learning Roadmap A quick breakdown of my 86 hours: 80 hours were dedicated to hands-on development and implementation, and 6 hours were spent on environment configuration, documentation, and workflow optimization. Stages 1–3: Automation & Scraping Projects ① Fundamentals & Web Scraping (25 hours) Learned core Python syntax and built automated scripts to collect targeted web data. ② Puoppo Auto-Analysis System (15 hours) Implemented automated poll data retrieval and AI-powered text analysis on Lubuntu. ③ Bakery Sales Aggregation System (12 hours) Integrated web scraping with automated Excel processing to streamline sales data aggregation. Stage 4: Practical Ruby on Rails ④ rails_practice (23 hours) Explored MVC architecture in Ruby on Rails. Practiced configuration management and Git rebasing to build a solid foundation in web framework operations. Stage 5: Real-World System Integration ⑤ hiroshima-logistics-hub (5 hours) Built a web system to aggregate real-time weather and traffic conditions in the Hiroshima area. Technical Fix : To bypass build crashes on Render (Free Tier / 512MB RAM), I precompiled assets locally and configured SQLite3 database storage in writable directories before deployment. 3. Key Takeaways for Resource-Constrained Development Through these projects, I established three operational principles for developing efficiently within

The company ticked off a few more boxes on the second Starship V3 flight, but appears to have had another issue relighting the booster's rocket engines.

A bunch of companies that I spoke to had their own claude & codex OTel dashboards that showed spend + seats per month. However, none of the dashboards actually analyzed how the engineers worked with the tools and if there were any areas for improvement! That's why I created https://www.promptster.ai . Managers get aggregate level view of code quality and how that ties with team workflows (nothing on a per-engineer level). While engineers get personalized coaching on how they can save tokens whil

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

Flames burned through the Deep Space Communications Complex near Madrid, but NASA has been unable to assess the damage as a wildfire emergency grips the region.

"Any potential damage will be assessed when it is safe to do so."

Remember when Meta was planning to charge a $20 monthly subscription fee for the smart glasses feature that lets people hear each other more clearly - even though that feature runs locally on your glasses and doesn't require the cloud? Meta has paused those plans, spokesperson Tyler Yee confirms to The Verge. The company is […]

The neolab is betting that automating routine computer tasks will soon outpace coding as AI's biggest use case.