Further work suggests that the type of pdf file might matter, as I have now seen the defunct daemon after
adding the first pdf file in an entry.

However, I have also found that image manipulation (rotation, size) generates a defunct daemon.

> Hi Stefan and Andreas
> 
> Yesterday I reported I had some issues with the latest elog: but now I can reproduce one.  
> elog 2.9.2-a738232
> 
> I started a new entry, and attached three pdf files.  I did not get the problem of not seeing the png thumnbnail
> this time, although that is annoying if you want/need to adjust the thumbnail image before submitting.
> 
> However, if I then look at the running processes, I have the following listed (ps -A)
> 
> 23677 tty1     00:00:04 elogd
> 23809 tty1     00:00:00 elogd <defunct>
> 23825 tty1     00:00:00 elogd <defunct>
> 23847 pts/0    00:00:00 ps
> 
> 23677 was when I started the elogd daemon, having killed off the previous daemon etc for test purposes.
> 
> 23809 and 23825 appeared after a couple of pdfs were added (second and third ones to be precise).  They can only
> be killed off by killing off the original running daemon.  It appears that attaching a second and further pdf
> attachments to any entry generates an elogd <defunct> in the processes list, although attaching a jpg in the
> middle of a list of pdfs didn't (but the next pdf did).  This is happening while adding attachments, that is the
> Submit button has yet to be pressed, so it seems to be generated  when the pdf file is being processed for some
> reason.
> 
> You can end up with quite a stack of these in the process list!
> 
> I never saw this behaviour with the previous version I was running, SVN2475 I think.
> 
> 
> By the way, I still cannot send an attachment over to this server (showing a screenshot) without the 502 error.

There is nothing within elog itself to insert entry 310 between 300 and 301.  If you allow branching in your logbook. make a second reply to entry 300, and add in the missing details.  That entry will always be there as a reply to 300, but not obviously between 300 and 301.

From this point, any way to improve matters will require editing of the log files (default location /usr/local/elog/logbooks).  I should warn that editing these files can cause problems, including elog to crash, and spotting your error can take a lot of effort.  I speak from experience. I suggest that you have a look at a few entries, the layout of the entries etc first, and if you're still up for it I'll give a quick spin on how to improve the tidyness of how your entires look with 310 inserted between 300 and 301.

I should add what I would write only applies for certain for linux users, as it is my OS of choice.

Hi there, In the "Find" page, I changed the default of the "Show last" drop down box in the Entry Date section from the (unstated) "All time" to "Day", and added back in an "All Time" option at the very bottom.  This gives a default of searching the last day, and one has to think and select the period of time to search back on.

I did this on my 2.9.2-2475 version, recompiled and it works.  Two lines of code changed and even my cr*ppy coding was up to the task.  I don't know if Stefan would want to put this into the Master copy (I'll forward the changes if you want Stefan, but it's pretty easy if I can do it), but if you can edit and recompile (Eoin) I can tell you which to lines for immediate functionality.  Back up everything first, though!

It has just occurred to me that you may also have to check the non-English files, (./resorces/eloglang_xxxx) as this change introduces a new term "All time" that would need translation into the other lexicons.

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.

David.

If my coding had been up to it, I would have done this and submitted...  thanks Stefan.

Hi Banata,

If you only have a few people who can reply, then use

Allow reply = <user list>

and no need to produce a "Deny reply" list.

If most people are able to reply, but a few are *not* allowed to reply - bad behaviour or whatever - then the Deny reply list is more appropriate, and no need to generate an "Allow reply" userlist.

David.

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.