> > Stefan told me that the change was because some users were having thousands of yymmdda.log files
> > in the logbook directories, and that sorting them into subdirectories by year at least did something to
bring some 
> > order.  Possibly to get around the lazy archivers, I suspect.
> 
> I'm actually the culprit, who did ask for it.
> 
> If you want to know the full story, here it is:
> We have our logbook data of our accelerator operation logbooks on AFS (Andrew File System). 
> And apparently AFS has a bloody stupid, hard coded limit: 
> the total length of all file names in one directory cannot exceed 64k.
> Our operation logbooks go back for more than a decade and do contain many, many, many attachment files.
> One day - very unexpectedly - we did hit that limit. 
> Removing temporary files (generated picture thumbnails) bought us time, and Stefan was nice enough to upgrade
ELOG swiftly for us: a big "Thank You" to Stefan!


Hi Andreas,

I had no intention of causing any offence with my lazy archiving comment - hope I didn't, sorry if I did.  Just
that sometimes I've hit some limit or other, and
entirely due to my lazy archiving - I only get around to do it when I have to, usually when I've hit a limit, or
some other problem (broken links and orphaned
threads being common ones).   

Personally, I would have found it useful to put the attachments into a separate directory - or at least to allow
the possibility.  Elog as it stands sometimes
can, and sometimes cannot cope with that functionality - and even to try means messing around directly with the
yymmdda.log files.  For me it would have saved me
having duplicates of the same large attachment in two or three different logbooks, if I could always reference
the same Master copy of the attachment.  This was
at the time I was severely memory constrained, and in part forced me to change how I had operated elog, so for
me that need isn't as great as it once was.

David.