on 16 drive MinIO deployment. If you use eight data and eight parity drives, the file space usage will be approximately twice, i.e. 100 MiB
file will take 200 MiB space. But, if you use ten data and six parity drives, same 100 MiB file takes around 160 MiB. If you use 14 data and
two parity drives, 100 MiB file takes only approximately 114 MiB.

  }

  public void testFutureCancellableBeforeFunctionCompletion() throws Exception {
    // Set the result in a separate thread since this test runs the function
    // (which will block) in the same thread.
    new Thread() {
      @Override
      public void run() {
        inputFuture.set(SLOW_FUNC_VALID_INPUT_DATA);
      }
    }.start();
    funcIsWaitingLatch.await();

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

  }

  public void testFutureCancellableBeforeFunctionCompletion() throws Exception {
    // Set the result in a separate thread since this test runs the function
    // (which will block) in the same thread.
    new Thread() {
      @Override
      public void run() {
        inputFuture.set(SLOW_FUNC_VALID_INPUT_DATA);
      }
    }.start();
    funcIsWaitingLatch.await();

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

  /**
   * Constructs a {@code HashCode} from the {@code Hasher} objects of the functions. Each of them
   * has consumed the entire input and they are ready to output a {@code HashCode}. The order of the
   * hashers are the same order as the functions given to the constructor.
   */
  // this could be cleaner if it passed HashCode[], but that would create yet another array...
  /* protected */ abstract HashCode makeHash(Hasher[] hashers);

  @Override

}

// TODO this should actually create v6 and v6 subsets of type `hash:ip`, add them both to a
// superset of type `list:set` - we can then query the superset directly in iptables (with the same rule),
// and iptables will be smart enough to pick the correct underlying set (v4 or v6, based on context),
// reducing the # of rules we need.
//

    return values, errors


def _should_embed_body_fields(fields: List[ModelField]) -> bool:
    if not fields:
        return False
    # More than one dependency could have the same field, it would show up as multiple
    # fields but it's the same one, so count them by name
    body_param_names_set = {field.name for field in fields}
    # A top level field has to be a single field, not multiple
    if len(body_param_names_set) > 1:

 * {@link #at}, {@link #set}, {@link #toArray}, {@link #rowKeyList}, and {@link #columnKeyList}
 * methods for more details.
 *
 * <p>Note that this implementation is not synchronized. If multiple threads access the same cell of
 * an {@code ArrayTable} concurrently and one of the threads modifies its value, there is no
 * guarantee that the new value will be fully visible to the other threads. To guarantee that

        .inOrder();
  }

  public void testCopyOf_array_empty() {
    /*
     * We don't guarantee the same-as property, so we aren't obligated to test it. However, it's
     * useful in testing - when two things are the same then one can't have bugs the other doesn't.
     */
    assertThat(ImmutableDoubleArray.copyOf(new double[0]))
        .isSameInstanceAs(ImmutableDoubleArray.of());