// do n swaps, minus a delta (0 or 2 for Reversal, gcd(d, n) for Successive), so that's about
    // twice as many reads and writes. But benchmarking shows that they usually perform better than
    // Dolphin. Reversal is about as good as Successive on average, and it is much simpler,
    // especially since we already have a `reverse` method.
    checkNotNull(array);

Free Software Foundation and other authors who decide to use it.  You
can use it too, but we suggest you first think carefully about whether
this license or the ordinary General Public License is the better
strategy to use in any particular case, based on the explanations below.

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom of use,
not price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that

If you are using **Kubernetes** (or others) and you are already setting **replication** at the cluster level, with multiple **containers**. In those cases, you are better off **building an image from scratch** as described above: [Build a Docker Image for FastAPI](#build-a-docker-image-for-fastapi).

And if you need to have multiple workers, you can simply use the `--workers` command line option.

   *
   * <p>If {@code keys} is a {@link Set}, a live view can be obtained instead of a copy using {@link
   * Maps#asMap(Set, Function)}.
   *
   * <p><b>Note:</b> on Java 8+, it is usually better to use streams. For example:
   *
   * {@snippet :
   * import static com.google.common.collect.ImmutableMap.toImmutableMap;
   * ...
   * ImmutableMap<Color, String> colorNames =

   * structure (to make it possible to throw ConcurrentModificationException in the iterator). Note
   * that we choose not to make this volatile, so we do less of a "best effort" to track such
   * errors, for better performance.
   *
   * <p>For a new instance, where the arrays above have not yet been allocated, the value of {@code
   * metadata} is the size that the arrays should be allocated with. Once the arrays have been

   *
   * <p>If {@code keys} is a {@link Set}, a live view can be obtained instead of a copy using {@link
   * Maps#asMap(Set, Function)}.
   *
   * <p><b>Note:</b> on Java 8+, it is usually better to use streams. For example:
   *
   * {@snippet :
   * import static com.google.common.collect.ImmutableMap.toImmutableMap;
   * ...
   * ImmutableMap<Color, String> colorNames =

			if entry.name == current.name {
				topEntries[i] = entry
				continue
			}
			// We got different entries
			if entry.name > current.name {
				continue
			}
			// We got a new, better current.
			// Clear existing entries.
			for i := range topEntries[:i] {
				topEntries[i] = metaCacheEntry{}
			}
			agree = 1
			current = entry
			topEntries[i] = entry
		}

   * {@link TreeSet} or the {@link Map#keySet} of an {@code IdentityHashMap}.
   *
   * <p><b>Note:</b> The returned view performs slightly better when {@code set1} is the smaller of
   * the two sets. If you have reason to believe one of your sets will generally be smaller than the
   * other, pass it first. Unfortunately, since this method sets the generic type of the returned

   * structure (to make it possible to throw ConcurrentModificationException in the iterator). Note
   * that we choose not to make this volatile, so we do less of a "best effort" to track such
   * errors, for better performance.
   *
   * <p>For a new instance, where the arrays above have not yet been allocated, the value of {@code
   * metadata} is the size that the arrays should be allocated with. Once the arrays have been

### 동시성이 병렬성보다 더 나은가요? { #is-concurrency-better-than-parallelism }

아니요! 그게 이 이야기의 교훈은 아닙니다.

동시성은 병렬성과 다릅니다. 그리고 많은 기다림이 포함되는 **특정한** 시나리오에서는 더 낫습니다. 그 때문에 웹 애플리케이션 개발에서는 일반적으로 병렬성보다 훨씬 더 낫습니다. 하지만 모든 것에 해당하진 않습니다.

그래서 균형을 맞추기 위해, 다음의 짧은 이야기를 상상해보세요: