performance – OLA job failed due to below error and having sufficient disk space,autogrowth enabled on server

Database context: (OperationsManager) (SQLSTATE 01000)
Command: ALTER INDEX (idxc_PerformanceData_26_TimeSampled) ON (dbo).(PerformanceData_26) REBUILD WITH (SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, ONLINE = OFF) (SQLSTATE 01000)
Comment: ObjectType: Table, IndexType: Index, IndexType: Clustered, Incremental: N, RowCount: 0, ModificationCounter: 0 (SQLSTATE 01000)
Msg 50000, Sev 16, State 1, Line 214 : Msg 1101, Could not allocate a new page for database
‘OperationsManager’ because of insufficient disk space in filegroup ‘PRIMARY’.
Create the necessary space by dropping objects in the filegroup, adding additional files to the filegroup,
or setting autogrowth on for existing files in the filegroup. (SQLSTATE 42000)
Outcome: Failed (SQLSTATE 01000)

stochastic processes – sufficient condition for the weak existence of a solution of an SDE

Please note that I am posting this question to each other from MSE as it is very likely to remain unresolved and I have not received an answer from my colleges / professors.

It is a known result from Skorokhod that when for the SDE:
$$ dX_t = b (t, X_t) dt + sigma (t, X_t) dW_t $$
the coefficients $ b (t, x) $ and $ sigma (t, x) $ are accepted continuously and limited then weak existence applies.

Regarding Ikeda & Watanabe's book (especially Theorem IV.2.3.), The authors state:

Given continuous coefficients $ sigma (x) $ and $ b (x) $ all the time
homogeneous) markovian type SDE

$$ dX_t = b (X_t) dt + sigma (X_t) dW_t $$ Then for every measure of probability
$ mu $ With compact support, there is a solution for the SDE, whose
The initial distribution matches $ mu $.

(Note that the resulting solution can be explosive, but this could be "solved" by assuming a quadratic integrability of the initial state and linear growth.)

I'm looking for more references to this particular result (which doesn't seem to be as well known). Neither Karatzas & Shreve nor Revuz & Yor seem to mention it. In the Cherny and Engelbert survey, they only mention the classic result of Skorokhod and the same thing happens at Strook & Varadhan.

I am therefore curious about this result, which Ikeda & Watanabe mentioned, which is less restrictive (although it only seems to apply to the homogeneous Markovian case).

Thanks in advance for any comment!

Is a firewall sufficient as a security measure for an Ubuntu server hosting a website?

I recently had a VPS with Ubuntu on it and want to create a very simple website. However, I don't know what steps to take to secure this server.

I'm new to Ubuntu, new to security, and new to website building (the website will likely only consist of HTML, CSS, Django / Python, and some databases).

My biggest worry is that a hacker could try to use it as a zombie, and I won't know. Or that robots could try to log in and sneak up on the data I'm going to save on this computer and I won't know. Or who knows what else.

I found the firewall information page on the Ubuntu website, but is that enough?

P .: If it is impossible to give an answer, I would also appreciate a book / website recommendation for Ubuntu and security beginners

Is "one representative" sufficient or do many similar things have to be tested?

This is (again) a question of methodology …

Let's say we're testing a service that returns Articles given ids, i.e. List

getArticles(List ids);. The appropriate location will also be null if the ID is invalid.

First fill the database with SQL:

INSERT INTO articles VALUES (2001, "aaa"), (2002, "bbbb"), (2003, "cc"), (2004, "ddddd");

Then test as follows. How should I do that (see details in the comments below)?

void testGetArticle() {
    // NOTE: WHICH WAY?

    // way1: one existing id, one nonexisting id.
    var ids = Arrays.newArrayList(2002, 9999);

    // way2: many existing ids, many nonexisting ids.
    var ids = Arrays.newArrayList(1000, 1001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 9997, 9998, 9999);

    List
a = xx.getArticle(ids); assertNull(a.get(0)); assertEquals(a.get(1), ...); ...etc... // assert each of the results }

Thank you for all suggestions!

Statistics – Are 4 to 4 points sufficient to clearly determine an oblique normal distribution?

The normal PDF is defined as:

$$
phi (x | mu, sigma) = frac {1} { sigma sqrt {2 pi}} e ^ {- frac {(x- mu) ^ {2}} {2 sigma ^ 2}}
$$

The cdf is given by:

$$
Phi (x) = int _ {- infty} ^ {x} phi (t) dt
$$

If we get the value of $ phi (x) $ at three different points this is enough to clearly determine $ mu $ and $ sigma $,

The general slant normal distribution is defined as:

$$
f (x) = frac {2} { omega} phi left ( frac {x- xi} { omega} right) Phi left ( alpha left ( frac {x- xi} { omega} right) right)
$$

Four points are enough to determine $ xi $. $ omega $ and $ alpha $?

What level of physical destruction is sufficient to ensure that an SSD is not readable?

My organization upgraded some printers and put the internal SSD hard drives out of operation by passing the memory chips through a band saw, cutting each chip in half and, in some cases, tearing entire sections off the greenboard.

These printers have been used so that they are likely to contain PHI / HIPAA information.

I seek advice on whether this method of destruction was sufficient or not.

I don't think so, but I want additional resources.

I have published what I have found so far as an answer, as this may be the answer to my question, but I hope for other contributions.

US Citizens – Is a 1-Hour Connection from MAD, Norwegian to Delta in LAX Sufficient?

Norwegian is a super discount airline that has no partner alliances or codeshares. I have the feeling that these are separate tickets,

That is the bad thing. You must consult with the person who sells these tickets if she offer a kind of connection insurance. But without something like that Norwegian is just not responsible for that knocks Effects of a slightly late arrival.

Delta owes you nothing if you miss the flight. You didn't show up and there's no way to blame this Norwegian. Norwegian does not owe you money for the effects of a (slightly) late arrival. This is the difference between thru ticketing and separate ticketing.

You can pounce on Delta's mercy; Sometimes airlines have rules for "flat tires", e.g. if you miss a flight through no fault of your own. However, this would be your fault if you booked such a close connection.

Transit – is MAD a 1-hour connection from Norwegian to Delta sufficient?

I might give you a 1:10 chance of making this connection. Maybe a little higher if you have Global Entry / Mobile Passport and / or TSA PreCheck or if the inbound flight is early. Significantly lower if the incoming flight is delayed, even by only 10 minutes.

If the inbound flight doors open on time and you have checked in for your delta flight in advance, you have 45 minutes to:

  • Get out of the inbound flight. Depending on the seat, this can take between a few seconds and ~ 10 minutes.
  • Come to immigration. Again somewhere between a few seconds and a few minutes, depending on when you came.
  • Come through immigration. Depending on the length of the queue, between a few minutes and more than 30 minutes
  • Go to Terminal 2 or 3. Maybe 5 minutes
  • Get through security in this terminal. Between a few minutes and more than 30 minutes, depending on several factors.
  • Go to your gate – and be there 15 minutes before departure, otherwise your seat will probably be taken.

Possible? Yes. Probably? No…

If you have checked in your baggage or for some reason have not been able to check in online, your chances of winning decrease even further, as you have to be at the Delta Terminal 45 minutes before departure or 30 minutes before departure to drop off your luggage.