### ¿Es la concurrencia mejor que el paralelismo?

¡No! Esa no es la moraleja de la historia.

La concurrencia es diferente del paralelismo. Y es mejor en escenarios **específicos** que implican mucha espera. Debido a eso, generalmente es mucho mejor que el paralelismo para el desarrollo de aplicaciones web. Pero no para todo.

Así que, para equilibrar eso, imagina la siguiente historia corta:

    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("Should handle concurrent encryption operations safely")
    void testConcurrentEncryption() throws Exception {
        // Given - Test a simpler concurrent scenario first
        Smb2EncryptionContext context = new Smb2EncryptionContext(EncryptionNegotiateContext.CIPHER_AES128_GCM, DialectVersion.SMB311,
                testEncryptionKey, testEncryptionKey);

  // below by testing their text-processing methods.

  // The organization of this test class is unusual, as it's not done by
  // method, but by overall "scenario". Also, the variety of actual tests we
  // do borders on absurd overkill. Better safe than sorry, though?

  @GwtIncompatible // java.util.BitSet
  public void testSetBits() {
    doTestSetBits(CharMatcher.any());

    // causing the thread to be suspended for 3.5 seconds, and then park itself for 2 seconds after
    // being resumed. To avoid a flake in this scenario, calculate how long that thread actually
    // waited and assert based on that time. Empirically, the race where the thread ends up waiting
    // for 5.5 seconds happens about 2% of the time.

### One Process per Container { #one-process-per-container }

In this type of scenario, you probably would want to have **a single (Uvicorn) process per container**, as you would already be handling replication at the cluster level.

	m, ok := isObjectDangling(metaArr, errs, dataErrsByPart)
	if !ok {
		// We only come here if we cannot figure out if the object
		// can be deleted safely, in such a scenario return ReadQuorum error.
		return FileInfo{}, errErasureReadQuorum
	}
	tags := make(map[string]string, 16)
	tags["set"] = strconv.Itoa(er.setIndex)
	tags["pool"] = strconv.Itoa(er.poolIndex)

    server.enqueue(builder.build())
    if (responseCode == HttpURLConnection.HTTP_CLIENT_TIMEOUT) {
      // 408's are a bit of an outlier because we may repeat the request if we encounter this
      // response code. In this scenario, there are 2 responses: the initial 408 and then the 200
      // because of the retry. We just want to ensure the initial 408 isn't cached.
      expectedResponseCode = 200
      server.enqueue(
        MockResponse

}

// updates rebalance.bin from let's say 2 pool setup in the middle
// of a rebalance, was expanded can cause z.rebalMeta to be outdated
// due to a missing new pool. This function tries to handle this
// scenario, albeit rare it seems to have occurred in the wild.
//
// since we do not explicitly disallow it, but it is okay for them
// expand and then we continue to rebalance.

		}
		if errors.Is(err, errFileNotFound) {
			// An in-quorum errFileNotFound means that client stream
			// prematurely closed and we do not find any xl.meta or
			// part.1's - in such a scenario we must return as if client
			// disconnected. This means that erasure.Encode() CreateFile()
			// did not do anything.
			return pi, IncompleteBody{Bucket: bucket, Object: object}
		}

    // causing the thread to be suspended for 3.5 seconds, and then park itself for 2 seconds after
    // being resumed. To avoid a flake in this scenario, calculate how long that thread actually
    // waited and assert based on that time. Empirically, the race where the thread ends up waiting
    // for 5.5 seconds happens about 2% of the time.