The data format has nothing to do with the functionality of browsing buttons. Except if you have an empty logbook, or a logbook with just one entry, then of course going forwared and backward will not make any sense. 

I have a group includes more than one logbooks. One has about 1600 entries and another new one has 5 entries. I have tried them both. When I retested with v2.6.5, the buttons are still functional. This problem also exists on Firefox plus giving me a message "This is the first entry" "This is the last entry" when I clicked a previous button and next button respectively. I need to use v2.9.2 since it has many improvements

> I upgraded my system, including the version of Firefox.
> [...]
> Sorry this is a bit rambling, but its very hard to describe!

A picture can say more than thousand words.
Can you reproduce this with a simple configuration?
If yes, can you attach the configuration, the *a.log files,
a description of what firefox version you're using and please:
some screenshots of "before" and "after"?

Thanks!
Andreas

> > I upgraded my system, including the version of Firefox.
> > [...]
> > Sorry this is a bit rambling, but its very hard to describe!
> 
> A picture can say more than thousand words.
> Can you reproduce this with a simple configuration?
> If yes, can you attach the configuration, the *a.log files,
> a description of what firefox version you're using and please:
> some screenshots of "before" and "after"?
> 
> Thanks!
> Andreas
That's odd, I cannot reproduce the problem today - except on the topic [logbook] it already exists on.
Yet nothing has changed.  
I've looked for hidden files, hidden control codes in the *a.log files...  this one had better be put on the
back burner until I can find a way to reproduce it (!).

Maybe you have indeed too many options in your configuration file. Can you please post it here or send it to my privately so that I can have a look?

- Stefan 

 It's probably not of much help, but for a short time I ran two elog daemons on the same linux box, using different ports.  It was thus able to run with two separate elogd.cfg files.   This is linux, and heavily biased to my eccentric way of running this linux box, but started them as:

/usr/local/sbin/elogd -p 8080 -c /home/logbooks1/elogd1.cfg -d /home/logbooks1

/usr/local/sbin/elogd -p 8081 -c /home/logbooks2/elogd2.cfg -d /home/logbooks2

Do note that as I was the only user on that linux box, I didn't have login etc.

However, I was soon asked questions by Andreas as to how I found this running, as he had encountered problems with an earlier version.  To be honest, that stopped me experimenting too far with this at that point, as well as a coincidental upgrading of my hardware.

But I was doing this *not* because I had to run two separate elogd.cfg files, but other reasons which meant splitting into two at that time vastly improved the performance of elog on the linux box at that time.  So while I didn't actually enounter any problems in doing so, I only have limited experience - and, of course, absolutely none on running even one [windows equivalent of a daemon] on Windows.

I am assuming here you have good reason for two separate elogd.cfg files, rather than just wanting to run two separate logbooks - guessing here, but one set public (no login) and one set private (with login)?

 

 I need to do this because there are 2 different groups that each have 6 or 7 different logbooks in their elogd.cfg files.  (and they can't access each others log books)

Currently the first group  accesses elog as http:elog.com:8080.  The elogd windows service executes "C:\Program FilesELOG\elogd.exe" -D -c "C:\Program Files\ELOG\elogd.cfg"  

From what I can tell, whats needed is either some way to get the windows service to run a different config file or there needs to be a way of creating a second elog windows service that points to a different elogd.cfg file. Is there some way of doing this?

Have you checked the option "Top groups", which was made especially for that case? You can create several independent sets of logbooks not seeing each other.