Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 237 of 796  Not logged in ELOG logo
IDdown Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  67823   Sun Mar 15 16:41:49 2015 Reply David PilgramDavid.Pilgram@epost.org.ukCommentAll-Re: Configure default time range in 'Find'

Hi Stefan,

There's one pre-set value you forgot to include in this, which is the genuinely required "Show last all time".  I archive many logbooks by years, and so for the year 2005 (say), searching by anything other than all time will always bring up zero results.  And it gets annoying that the default default is "Day", the number of times I've forgotten...

I got around this by allowing a "Show last default = 0", modifying the relevent line in the block of code you modified when this was introduced to make this select "i==0", and that did the trick. 

Stefan Ritt wrote:

I added a new optoin "Show last default = <days>", where one can pre-set the "Show last" drop-down box. I think this is a good idea, so now people can configure their elog to a certain default in this parameter. Of course all settings in the Find page are AND'ed together, so if one restricts the search to tha last week, but then looks for a date more in the past, the result will be zero by definition. The change is in the GIT repository. If you cannot recompile the code yourself, you have to wait for the next release.

David Pilgram wrote:

By the way, in further testing, the "Show last" selection over-rides whatever two dates are selected, so if you ask for any entry in Dec 2014, but the "Show last" selects "week", nothing is found - very quickly.  I trust that is what you're after, Eoin.  I'll keep my change to the coding, but that's personal choice.

 

  67822   Thu Mar 12 09:53:57 2015 Reply Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chQuestionWindows2.9.2Re: Is it possible to only send an email based on the value of multiple attributes?

Darren Hollinrake wrote:
My current setup notifies users if downtime = yes.
Email Downtime Yes = user1@xyz.com, user2@xyz.com

Is it possible to only send an email based on the value of multiple attributes?
For my use:
user1 only needs notifications if Platform = Workstation and Downtime = Yes
user2 only needs notifications if Platform = Network and Downtime = Yes



I think there is a solution, although it is complicated and I haven't tested it:

You can have an invisible field that is set based on a calculation from several fields, and use this field for the conditional email notification.
Just to give an idea, something like:

Subst myUser1Note = $shell( if [ $Platform = "Workstation" ] && [ $Downtime = "Yes" ] then echo "notify";else echo "idle";fi)
Email myUser1Note notify = user1@xyz.com

And if you like you make this field invisible by skipping it in:
Show Attributes = ...
and
Show Attributes Edit = ...


Just an idea...

Andreas
  67821   Mon Mar 9 17:24:42 2015 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.9.2Re: Is it possible to only send an email based on the value of multiple attributes?

Darren Hollinrake wrote:
My current setup notifies users if downtime = yes.
Email Downtime Yes = user1@xyz.com, user2@xyz.com

Is it possible to only send an email based on the value of multiple attributes?
For my use:
user1 only needs notifications if Platform = Workstation and Downtime = Yes
user2 only needs notifications if Platform = Network and Downtime = Yes


This is currently not implemented, but it's a good idea. I will keep it in mind for the next release.
  67820   Mon Mar 9 17:03:38 2015 Entry Darren Hollinrakehollinrakedp@gmail.comQuestionWindows2.9.2Is it possible to only send an email based on the value of multiple attributes?
My current setup notifies users if downtime = yes.
Email Downtime Yes = user1@xyz.com, user2@xyz.com

Is it possible to only send an email based on the value of multiple attributes?
For my use:
user1 only needs notifications if Platform = Workstation and Downtime = Yes
user2 only needs notifications if Platform = Network and Downtime = Yes
  67819   Mon Mar 2 08:06:38 2015 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.9.2Re: Elog stability with multiple users
Being not able to kill a server running in an endless loop seems strange to me. If you put any program artificially into an endless loop, you can kill it via "kill -9 <pid>". Have you tried that? The only exception I 
can imagine is if there is a problem in the file system, like your elog logbooks are mounted via NFS or some other remote filesystem, and you have a problem there. Since the process might be stuck in kernel 
mode, you cannot kill it. That's why I have all my servers running on local file systems. Just another thought.

/Stefan
  67818   Sat Feb 28 14:08:43 2015 Reply David PilgramDavid.Pilgram@epost.org.ukQuestionWindows2.9.2Re: Elog stability with multiple users
I grant that this may be a complete red herring, but your description below  - not available and having to reboot - 
might have another explanation.  At least in Linux.

I have found that if you have a broken thread, and you try to access that thread, the daemon goes into an endless
loop and
I could not kill off the daemon by normal means, but had to reboot the computer.  The daemon cannot cope with not
finding 
an entry where one is referenced by a subsequent (or previous, I assume) entry.

A broken thread can occur if you move a thread with a large number of subsequent entries - more than say 50 (I
don't know 
the precise number) from one log book to another.  The copy part of the move works, but the deleting of the entries
in the 
original log book is incomplete, leaving an orphan set of (later) entires.  Access those, and it's time for a
reboot.  Which makes 
finding them a potentially tedius and multiple rebooting exercise.  I know, because I've had to track a number in
my time.

Just a thought.

David.


> We have reduced entries for Search reasons by removing older text files and that seems to speed up things. 
> However, a recurring problem persists during peak period where the service connection is lost (site says "Not 
> found" on both client and directly on server), and it cannot be restarted or killed. Only a reboot of the 2010 
> x64 virtual server will make it available again. 
> 
> Any further info or details I can provide please advise. Thank you Stefan.
  67817   Fri Feb 27 23:06:53 2015 Reply Alan Grantagrant@winnipeg.caQuestionWindows2.9.2Re: Elog stability with multiple users
We have reduced entries for Search reasons by removing older text files and that seems to speed up things. 
However, a recurring problem persists during peak period where the service connection is lost (site says "Not 
found" on both client and directly on server), and it cannot be restarted or killed. Only a reboot of the 2010 
x64 virtual server will make it available again. 

Any further info or details I can provide please advise. Thank you Stefan.
  67816   Thu Feb 26 10:39:58 2015 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.9.2Re: Elog stability with multiple users

By desing, there is no collision between different users, since all requests are executed in sequence (single thread). The only problem is that the server becomes unavailable for others if it executes a long search. This is why most users of large lobooks restrict their search to let's say the last month or so by default. This speeds up the search and limits the dead time for others. This can be done via the show last default = <days> directive.

Alan Grant wrote:

Are there any known or reported daemon stability issues with an increase of concurrent users logged in to view and search entries, while the elog client is also adding 5 to 10 new entries every minute during a peak 2-hour period each day?

 

ELOG V3.1.5-2eba886