* {@code Builder} object, even though only one of them will be used in the built map. If there
     * can be many repeated keys, it may be more space-efficient to use a {@link
     * java.util.LinkedHashMap LinkedHashMap} and {@link ImmutableMap#copyOf(Map)} rather than
     * {@code ImmutableMap.Builder}.
     *
     * @since 31.1
     */

   *
   * <p><b>Performance note:</b> According to our
   * benchmarking
   * on Open JDK 7, {@link #immutableSortedCopy} generally performs better (in both time and space)
   * than this method, and this method in turn generally performs better than copying the list and
   * calling {@link Collections#sort(List)}.
   */
  // TODO(kevinb): rerun benchmarks including new options

     * {@code Builder} object, even though only one of them will be used in the built map. If there
     * can be many repeated keys, it may be more space-efficient to use a {@link
     * java.util.LinkedHashMap LinkedHashMap} and {@link ImmutableMap#copyOf(Map)} rather than
     * {@code ImmutableMap.Builder}.
     *
     * @since 31.1
     */

// compacted until the limit is reached.
//
// This ensures that any branch will never contain an unreasonable amount of other branches,
// and also that small branches with few objects don't take up unreasonable amounts of space.
// This keeps the cache size at a reasonable size for all buckets.
//
// Whenever a branch is scanned, it is assumed that it will be un-compacted
// before it hits any of the above limits.

 * equal, and the [equals()][Object.equals] method between them returns true:
 *
 *  * https://example.net/
 *
 *  * https://example.com/
 *
 * This is because those two hosts share the same IP address. This is an old, bad design decision
 * that makes `java.net.URL` unusable for many things. It shouldn't be used as a [Map] key or in a

    val call3 = client.newCall(Request(server.url("/")))
    call3.execute().use { response ->
      assertThat(
        response.body.string(),
      ).isEqualTo("c")
    }

    // All calls share a connection.
    assertThat(server.takeRequest().sequenceNumber).isEqualTo(0)
    assertThat(server.takeRequest().sequenceNumber).isEqualTo(1)
    assertThat(server.takeRequest().sequenceNumber).isEqualTo(2)
  }

   * uniform, the actual concurrency observed may vary. Ideally, you should choose a value to
   * accommodate as many threads as will ever concurrently modify the table. Using a significantly
   * higher value than you need can waste space and time, and a significantly lower value can lead
   * to thread contention. But overestimates and underestimates within an order of magnitude do not

- Multiple Kubernetes clusters can now share the same resource group
    - When upgrading from previous releases, issues will arise with public IPs if multiple clusters share the same resource group. To solve these problems, make the following changes to the cluster:

        makeLocalCache(createCacheBuilder().concurrencyLevel(concurrencyLevel));
    assertThat(map.segments).hasLength(segmentCount);
  }

  public void testSetInitialCapacity() {
    // share capacity over each segment, then round up to the nearest power of two

    checkInitialCapacity(1, 0, 1);
    checkInitialCapacity(1, 1, 1);
    checkInitialCapacity(1, 2, 2);
    checkInitialCapacity(1, 3, 4);

        makeLocalCache(createCacheBuilder().concurrencyLevel(concurrencyLevel));
    assertThat(map.segments).hasLength(segmentCount);
  }

  public void testSetInitialCapacity() {
    // share capacity over each segment, then round up to the nearest power of two

    checkInitialCapacity(1, 0, 1);
    checkInitialCapacity(1, 1, 1);
    checkInitialCapacity(1, 2, 2);
    checkInitialCapacity(1, 3, 4);