I'm getting this error   Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 4194304 bytes)   How come he tried to allocate 4194304 (which is smaller than the limit he specifies 134217728) and is exhausted?
I have a bunch of client point of sale (POS) systems that periodically send new sales data to one centralized database, which stores the data into one big database for report generation.  The client POS is based on PHPPOS, and I have implemented a module that uses the standard XML-RPC library to send sales data to the service. The server system is built on CodeIgniter, and uses the XML-RPC and XML-RPCS libraries for the webservice component. Whenever I send a lot of sales data (as little as 50 rows from the sales table, and individual rows from sales_items pertaining to each item within the sale) I get the following error:  Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 54 bytes)   128M is the default value in php.ini, but I assume that is a huge number to break. In fact, I have even tried setting this value to 1024M, and all it does is take a longer time to error out.  As for steps I've taken, I've tried disabling all processing on the server-side, and have rigged it to return a canned response regardless of the input. However, I believe the problem lies in the actual sending of the data. I've even tried disabling the maximum script execution time for PHP, and it still errors out.
Dedicated mouse and keyboard for a virtual machine, is it possible? Editing Subject in new Gmail For , the answer given on 7 Feb about how to edit the subject line in the new format of Gmail does not work for me.   There is no box on the left with a down arrow to options to reply, forward or edit subject in my version. There is a book on the right offering options to    Reply Reply to all Forward Filter message Print Delete Report spam Report phising Show original Message text garbled Translate message Mark answered    But, no option to edit subject iMessage doesn't say "delivered" or "not delivered" I sent an iMessage from my iPod touch to my friends iphone on Monday. It didn't say delivered or not delivered. It was just nothing. His phone is on (I know because my other friends are iMessaging him) and my friend said her messages don't say "delivered" at the bottom but they still talk. Mine always say delivered at the bottom. So is this an error, like it didn't go through, or is he just ignoring me? How do I hide a process in Task Manager in C#? I have a requirement to hide a process in Task Manager. It is for Intranet scenario. So, everything is legitimate. :)   Please feel free to share any code you have (preferably in C#) or any other techniques or any issues in going with this route.  Update1: Most of the users have admin privileges in order to run some legacy apps. So, one of the suggestion was to hide it in task manager. If there are other approaches to prevent users from killing the process, that would be great.  Update2: Removing the reference to rootkit. Somehow made this post look negative. Which is more correct:     Apropos of your earlier comment, I decided to....   or      Apropos your earlier comment, I decided to...   Actually, apropos is so fancy a word, even I, a word maven if I do say so myself, am not entirely sure when to use it.  If I may add to my preposition question, are there any constructions where it would be appropriate to use something like with regard to and not apropos? What would be better practice when giving a function the original variable to work with:  unsigned long x = 4;  void func1(unsigned long&amp; val) {      val = 5;             } func1(x);   or:  void func2(unsigned long* val) {      *val = 5; } func2(&amp;x);   IOW: Is there any reason to pick one over another? Find which date is missing in the results A little brain fart What is a nicer, less immature saying?  I love using 'A Freudian slip', but that is only applicable in certain situations. Finding an uncountable chain of subsets the integers How to find an uncountable subset of $P(\mathbb{N})$ such that every two elements of it can be compared. In fact, give an uncountable subset of $P(\mathbb{N})$ such that has totality property. We mean by $P(\mathbb{N})$, the powerset of natural numbers set $\mathbb{N}$. As made clear in update 3 on , this notation: var hash = {}; hash[X]  does not actually hash the object X; it actually just converts X to a string (via .toString() if it's an object, or some other built-in conversions for various primitive types) and then looks that string up, without hashing it, in &quot;hash&quot;. Object equality is also not checked - if two different objects have the same string conversion, they will just overwrite each other. Given this - are there any efficient implementations of hashmaps in JavaScript? (For example, the second Google result of  yields an implementation which is O(n) for any operation. Various other results ignore the fact that different objects with equivalent string representations overwrite each other. Exporting QGIS project to Mapnik XML? Is it possible to export a QGIS project to Mapnik xml?   I'm using QGIS 2.4 and Quantumnik does not seem to work with that version. Understanding the Durbin Watson test I am wondering whether there is any difference between a gerund acting as subject and an infinitive acting as a subject. Infinite amount of flags I have been going through some old posts, flagging them as necessary. But I have noticed that the number of posts that I am able to flag is continually staying at ten. It seems that the new flagging system has messed this up.  I am able to keep flagging posts even after 10, so I know it isn't a UI bug. This is a very big problem, because I can flag infinitely many times. And I am pretty sure this isn't the intended behavior of the overlords This isn't because I am being awarded more flags. I flag more than 13 posts in 5 minutes, and I can keep going without restriction  Some of the flags were accepted, so now my number is up to 13. But it is still staying at 13 The Sitemap Paradox We use a  on Stack Overflow, but I have mixed feelings about it.  Web crawlers usually discover pages from links within the site and from other sites. Sitemaps supplement this data to allow crawlers that support Sitemaps to pick up all URLs in the Sitemap and learn about those URLs using the associated metadata. Using the Sitemap  does not guarantee that web pages are included in search engines, but provides hints for web crawlers to do a better job of crawling your site.  Based on our two years' experience with sitemaps, there's something fundamentally paradoxical about the sitemap:  Sitemaps are intended for sites that are hard to crawl properly. If Google can't successfully crawl your site to find a link, but is able to find it in the sitemap it gives the sitemap link no weight and will not index it!  That's the sitemap paradox -- if your site isn't being properly crawled (for whatever reason), using a sitemap will not help you! Google goes out of their way to make :  &quot;We cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if your URLs will be crawled or added to our index&quot;  &quot;We don't guarantee that we'll crawl or index all of your URLs. For example, we won't crawl or index image URLs contained in your Sitemap.&quot;  &quot;submitting a Sitemap doesn't guarantee that all pages of your site will be crawled or included in our search results&quot;   Given that links found in sitemaps are merely recommendations, whereas links found on your own website proper are considered canonical ... it seems the only logical thing to do is avoid having a sitemap and make damn sure that Google and any other search engine can properly spider your site using the plain old standard web pages everyone else sees. By the time you have done that, and are getting spidered nice and thoroughly so Google can see that your own site links to these pages, and would be willing to crawl the links -- uh, why do we need a sitemap, again? The sitemap can be actively harmful, because it distracts you from ensuring that search engine spiders are able to successfully crawl your whole site. &quot;Oh, it doesn't matter if the crawler can see it, we'll just slap those links in the sitemap!&quot; Reality is quite the opposite in our experience. That seems more than a little ironic considering sitemaps were intended for sites that have a very deep collection of links or complex UI that may be hard to spider. In our experience, the sitemap does not help, because if Google can't find the link on your site proper, it won't index it from the sitemap anyway. We've seen this proven time and time again with Stack Overflow questions. Am I wrong? Do sitemaps make sense, and we're somehow just using them incorrectly? How to get scroll position from GridView? Minimum reputation for answering your own question should be higher than what is needed to ask If we're implementing , why don't we also require that users have at least 1.5 times the amount of reputation needed to ask their current question in order to answer their current question?  I believe this would really reduce the amount of non-answers that should have been edits to the original question, or perhaps a comment under another answer.  Edit  Inspired by marcog's excellent suggestion , perhaps it would make more sense to set a minimum amount of time that must pass before you can answer your own question. New users would need to wait in the neighborhood of six hours, while users with more reputation could answer their own question within minutes if they discovered the solution on their own.  This would get in the way of the behavior that we don't want, which is people posting answers that should have been edits while not annoying most. How do you get the footer to stay at the bottom of a Web page? I have the two PGF nodes foo and bar positioned in a row.  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{positioning} \begin{document}   \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=0.2cm,mynode/.style={rectangle,draw}]     \node[mynode] (foo)                {foo};     \node[mynode] (bar) [right=of foo] {bar};   \end{tikzpicture} \end{document}   How can I create a third node below those two nodes with the width of foo, bar and the node distance between them? Is there a way to do this with the fit library or is this the wrong approach? This appears to be a css bug which (I think) has recently been introduced. It's most visible when viewing questions on Stack Exchange sites using mobile devices (the full site with responsiveness, not the mobile site) but can easily be reproduced by resizing a browser window on a question where the combined width of the tags is large. A couple of example questions show this behaviour:  On Meta Stack Overflow:   On Meta Stack Exchange:     Using the Meta Stack Overflow question to demonstrate (as the total width of the tags is larger):  At 1100px, the tags just about fit into their containing div.     At 800px, the tags appear on top of related questions:     At 450px, the tags are now wider than the view (the last tag is completely off the screen), causing scroll bars to appear:      This doesn't happen to lists of questions - the tags flow onto multiple lines:     Reproduced on: { Firefox 81, Chrome 84, Edge 84 } on Windows 10, and Chrome 85 on Android 11.