> > I noticed that the gcc compiler options in the tarball Makefile were not
> > conducive to speed.  There, I tried changing the gcc options to:
> > 
> > CFLAGS = -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall
> 
> Thank your for this hint, I changed my Makefile for the production code. However, I
> could not feel any difference between the two options. The real problem is the
> function getcfg(), which gets called many thousand times internally and has to parse
> elogd.cfg each time. Once I implement a hash table for that function, elogd should
> become faster by at least a factor of two.

Yeah - What's up with that?

I have seen this discussed before - Seems like it should be a priority to get this
fixed, as doing a hash table is straightforward, and the speed increase should be pretty
health - there are several c libraries available - check out "man 3 hsearch" for the
POSIX hash table management that already available.  Other c library searches that you
could use include bsearch (binary tree), tsearch (tree searching), btree (b+ tree). 
However, the easiest and most obvious one to use for elog appears to be a simple hash
table search (hsearch).

Is there something else  which is making this difficult to do?

> Is there something else  which is making this difficult to do?

Not really, but hsearch() & Co. are not available under Windows, so I have to extract the
source code from the GNU C libarary or so. Since the last discussion I had lots of other
topics on my to-do list, such as mirroring and cloning, but the speed issue is getting more
and more up on the priority list.

> Ok, I added the option
> 
> Tooltip <attribute> = ...
> 
> I apply the HTML "title" tag to the whole table row, so the tooltip appears on the
> whole line, not only the attribute name. I guess this is much more intuitive. Give
> it a try. New version under CVS and available as a snapshot.

I like the implementation, especially with the tooltip popping up anywhere in the
area.  Thanks.

> > Is there something else  which is making this difficult to do?
> 
> Not really, but hsearch() & Co. are not available under Windows, so I have to extract the
> source code from the GNU C libarary or so. Since the last discussion I had lots of other
> topics on my to-do list, such as mirroring and cloning, but the speed issue is getting more
> and more up on the priority list.

Speaking of windows I'd like to note that when I moved my call tracking config from a slow BSD
system (PPro 200Mhz) to a faster windows system (P3 733M) I noted a huge slow down in the
interface.  Talking about perhaps 1-2 seconds before to 10-15 seconds after.  Using
sysinternals file monitor I see that elogd is hammering each log file in the directory.  Not
sure what else is going on.  309 log files - only 1.25Meg.  

Anything I can do short of pruning down the files?

[Edit:  In both cases above my default view is filtered and sorted - so that I only see things
with a specific status.  Taking away the filtering resolves this hit - but does not explain the
speed difference between platforms.]

-D

Hi,

I have an ELOG installation on a RedHat linux server, called myserver. I 
can connect to this server with the following entries in the elogd.cfg file:
   [global]
   URL=http://myserver:8080
This works fine. I can log in, select logbooks, edit/create entries etc. 
etc.

However, I want this connection to be encrypted. So I activate stunnel (v4) 
in such a way that stunnel listens to port 8081 and forwards to the 
("remote") port 8080, which is the "original" elog port. I change the URL= 
entry in de elogd.cfg file to URL=https://myserver:8081 in order to use the 
SSL encrypted connection.

At this time, when I connect to https://myserver:8081 I get the 
welcome/login screen, but when I enter the (correct) username and password, 
the elog program does not show the contents of the logbook buts shows the 
loginscreen again. If I enter a wrong username/password, I do get a correct 
error-screen. So it seems that the connection is correct, but there is some 
sort of problem in ELOG. Anyone who can give me a hand here?

Hello friends, 

Exist some form to increase limits of items (100) in the Options List



Thanks for any help

> Hello friends, 
> 
> Exist some form to increase limits of items (100) in the Options List
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help

I believe only through an edit of the C code and a recompile, as the values
are set as constants.  I think this might be the line:

#define MAX_N_LIST      100

So, yes, there exists a way and the ease of this way is dependent upon your
comfort level with changing stefan's code.

> > Hello friends, 
> > 
> > Exist some form to increase limits of items (100) in the Options List
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for any help
> 
> I believe only through an edit of the C code and a recompile, as the values
> are set as constants.  I think this might be the line:
> 
> #define MAX_N_LIST      100
> 
> So, yes, there exists a way and the ease of this way is dependent upon your
> comfort level with changing stefan's code.

Agree. The only potential problem is that if this value becomes too big, you
will get a stack overflow from time to time. So best is experiment yourself a
bit. A avlue of 150 or so should be no problem.

- Stefan