ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
69301
|
Thu Feb 18 12:05:52 2021 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Bug report | Linux | 3.1.4-2 | Re: elog server go to high CPU and hangs | Dear Stefano,
Try the entry I wrote some time ago elog:68655
David.
> Dear expert,
> I'm running the latest git version of elog ELOG V3.1.4-395e101a on ubuntu 20.04.2.
> I'm experiencing frequent hangs of the elog server: the status is always reported as running, but the web server is not responding.
> The only hint I have of something strange is that the elogd process is using a lot of CPU (50-100%), the log do not show anything suspect
> as far as I can see.
>
> Has anyone experienced something similar or has any idea how can I start to debug the problem?
>
> Sorry for lack of many information, but I don't know what to look at.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Stefano |
69587
|
Mon Nov 21 13:32:04 2022 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Windows | 3-1-4 | Re: Planned maintenance at the top of ELOG listing | The way to do this is to ensure that the date of the entry is in the future. As a hard -core linux (ab)user of elog, I create an entry, then dive into the yymmdda.log files, and edit it so that the date at the top of the entry is, for example, Sat, 31 Dec 2022 23:59:59. Then, that entry will remain at the top of the listings until the New Year. I do this very thing for the very same reason, i.e. to keep one entry at the top of the listings until after a certain date.
It may be that if you have "date of entry" field and sort by that, you could set the date of entry in the future. I've not tried that.
The same effect could be done by adjusting the computer/server's date to the future, make the entry and then reset back to the present, but that may well be unpopular and impractical. On a single computer, I have done this, although I then changed to editing the yymmdda.log file directly.
Finn Junker wrote: |
We use our instance of ELOG as a operations log so that newest events are sorted at the top.
Sometimes we are also up front informed about planned maintenance, and i would be nice to could "pin" them at the top - before the sorting, so that operatores could have them in mind when starting a new shift. Have anyone found a way to solve this?
Kind Regards Finn
|
|
69635
|
Sat Jan 28 14:26:07 2023 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Request | All | - | Re: Wikipedia Article deleted | I am rather with John on this.
I deliberately stopped contributing to Wikipedia years ago after I added an observation to an entry. That is, a piece of what could be called original research. It was shot down in flames for being precisely that: original research. From what I read in the Draft:Elog and the Talk section, I think that the same issue in some guise or other will come up. All of us use and love Elog - I think I use it for all of the listed purposes - but apart from being in the Debian distro (which I did not know about) there is very little published primary sources. Mind you, the quality of publications as primary sources can be questioned, I can bore on with several examples.
Has anyone ever published a paper citing their filing cabinet organisation? Elog's obviously different, but has the same problem when it comes to citations. It is a utility, a very useful one, but the sort of utility that might just make an aside in a paper these days. If we were in the 1980s and (hypothetically) Elog was available and as functional, that would probably make it the subject in computer research papers and magazines.
David.
John Kelly wrote: |
Wikipedia has been an unreliable source for a very long time, just for the reasons that we are seeing here now with psi and Elog. Those that 'run' Wikipedia are political and authoratative. I have not only had these negative experiences with 'them' but know of many others that have as well. I see no reason why an organization as ours with such great ideas, programs and people need to be on their site. I think it would 'say more' if we left this as is and let others see how unreliable Wikipedia really is.
John
Andreas Luedeke wrote: |
It appears to me that this is a really stupid problem: the article provides many links to sources, but they are just links, not "references". That does not count, since links could be something else than references.
I'll try to edit it and transform the list of external links into references to verify the text. Lets hope that this will suffice.
Okay: found three articles about applications of ELOG and put them under references. I took the liberty to submit the draft: it shows that they expect some month delay for a review. I have no idea if that was what they want, but it is worth a try.
Edmund Blomley wrote: |
If I understand it correctly I think it has to be submitted for review with the blue button on that page, just not sure if that should come from your side or someone else
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
I added some more references, that's about all I can do. Not sure if that is enough.
Stefan
Edmund Blomley wrote: |
It was now moved to the Draft space (which I did not even now existed so far): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ELOG
Sebastian Schenk wrote: |
I have requested an undeletion of the article. The article was deleted "PROD", which means that someone tagged it. And if noone removes the tag, it could be deleted.
I could revive the article. So in the future, One should have an eye on it and maybe update the current version of the software.
If there iy an paper on the elog, maybe it could be cited for more creditability.
Andreas Luedeke wrote: |
It looks to me like only an author of an article can contradict a deletion. I did not find a single method to even comment on the deletion.
I am not an Wikipedia expert, can anyone suggest on how to push for the article to be restored? Or do we just write it again, until people stop deleting it?
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
I agree. I ahead ;-) I think it is not a good idea if the ELOG author pushes on that, but better someone else.
Best,
Stefan
Sebastian Schenk wrote: |
Hello,
I noticed the wikipedia article of the ELOG got deleted in November 2021.
With the reason: "Poorly sourced article, and I was not able to find good sources myself."
I could access the old article through web.archive.org, but for the project it would be good, if the article got revived.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69715
|
Mon Jan 8 15:56:40 2024 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Windows | ELOG V3.1.3-a38 | Re: Maximum number of attributes | In my case, I had a number of attributes which had a varied prefix. For example, "progressed" , which could have no prefix, or prefix "I", "To be", "Strongly", "Seriously"... and that was true (the same prefixes, or at least many of them) for a number of attributes. Splitting them into two groups, the prefixes and the action, allowed me to gain more actual attributes without having to recompile. Suitable change in the elog config file will also make this easy to follow in how the entries are shown in threaded or full display modes. In your case suffixes may be better, but I hope you get the point.
Although I have done a (linux) recompile in the past, v2.9 something, 120 attributes seemed not to affect things.
Dr Marta Divall wrote: |
Dear Stefan,
Thansk for the super fast response! To keep the stability of the system we will look for a different solution then.
Best,
Marta
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
You would have to change the elogd.c code and recompile. At some point you wlll however get crash of elogd with a stack overflow. If you need more than 100 attributes, it becomes anyhow hard to manage, so I would suggest other ways, like adding iformation to the text body etc.
Best,
Stefan
Dr Marta Divall wrote: |
The maximum number or attributes is 100.
Is it possible to increase this?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
69718
|
Mon Jan 8 17:30:42 2024 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Windows | ELOG V3.1.3-a38 | Re: Maximum number of attributes | Or what about the "ticket number" feature? Every new entry thread (sorry, confusing terminology on my part) would increment the ticket number by one, and there is no limit as far as I am aware. This is all explained in the elogd configuration documentation.
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Why don't you simply create a single attribute "identifier", which then gets a value D_001, ..., D_xxx. You can still use the D_xxx in full text search.
Stefan
Dr Marta Divall wrote: |
To explain the problem, we have silicon chip designs, which we log with an indentifyier, which is the attribute for easy search, as we want to follow their progress from design thorugh fabrication to testing, involving many people. They are called D_001; D_099...you get it. We have reached the 100, but maybe it is the est just to create an archive after each 100 design and make a new tab/logbook. Any other suggestions are of course welcome.
David Pilgram wrote: |
In my case, I had a number of attributes which had a varied prefix. For example, "progressed" , which could have no prefix, or prefix "I", "To be", "Strongly", "Seriously"... and that was true (the same prefixes, or at least many of them) for a number of attributes. Splitting them into two groups, the prefixes and the action, allowed me to gain more actual attributes without having to recompile. Suitable change in the elog config file will also make this easy to follow in how the entries are shown in threaded or full display modes. In your case suffixes may be better, but I hope you get the point.
Although I have done a (linux) recompile in the past, v2.9 something, 120 attributes seemed not to affect things.
Dr Marta Divall wrote: |
Dear Stefan,
Thansk for the super fast response! To keep the stability of the system we will look for a different solution then.
Best,
Marta
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
You would have to change the elogd.c code and recompile. At some point you wlll however get crash of elogd with a stack overflow. If you need more than 100 attributes, it becomes anyhow hard to manage, so I would suggest other ways, like adding iformation to the text body etc.
Best,
Stefan
Dr Marta Divall wrote: |
The maximum number or attributes is 100.
Is it possible to increase this?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69719
|
Mon Jan 8 21:08:43 2024 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Windows | ELOG V3.1.3-a38 | Re: Maximum number of attributes | As for my suggestion earlier, now I'm at my computer with working elog. I think that the following four lines (three I guess already there but need alteration for this) need to appear in your elogd.conf file. The first three should also include any other thing you need to display etc. I've cut this down to the bear bones, and ... means anything else you want to add.
Attributes = Die, Organisation, ...
List display = Die, Organisation. ...
Thread display = $Die: $Organisation ...
Preset Die = D_#####
Now the first time you run this, it will give D_00001. You can edit that to D_00100 and it will increment from there. You may wish to have two types of user, those who can start a new thread, such as yourself, and others who can contribute but not start a new thread / new Die discussion.
Now it may be that the attribute name you gave D_001 etc can be used where I have used "Die" here, which would appear to give a seemless transition. and perhaps without the need of editing the first new thread.
I have tried these as changes to an existing logbook on my system. and they appeared to work fine. but in my case as a single user, I could always change the Die number, a feature I guess you do not want. I guess there is a way in the config file, but I'm running out of steam for today. David.
David Pilgram wrote: |
Or what about the "ticket number" feature? Every new entry thread (sorry, confusing terminology on my part) would increment the ticket number by one, and there is no limit as far as I am aware. This is all explained in the elogd configuration documentation.
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Why don't you simply create a single attribute "identifier", which then gets a value D_001, ..., D_xxx. You can still use the D_xxx in full text search.
Stefan
Dr Marta Divall wrote: |
To explain the problem, we have silicon chip designs, which we log with an indentifyier, which is the attribute for easy search, as we want to follow their progress from design thorugh fabrication to testing, involving many people. They are called D_001; D_099...you get it. We have reached the 100, but maybe it is the est just to create an archive after each 100 design and make a new tab/logbook. Any other suggestions are of course welcome.
David Pilgram wrote: |
In my case, I had a number of attributes which had a varied prefix. For example, "progressed" , which could have no prefix, or prefix "I", "To be", "Strongly", "Seriously"... and that was true (the same prefixes, or at least many of them) for a number of attributes. Splitting them into two groups, the prefixes and the action, allowed me to gain more actual attributes without having to recompile. Suitable change in the elog config file will also make this easy to follow in how the entries are shown in threaded or full display modes. In your case suffixes may be better, but I hope you get the point.
Although I have done a (linux) recompile in the past, v2.9 something, 120 attributes seemed not to affect things.
Dr Marta Divall wrote: |
Dear Stefan,
Thansk for the super fast response! To keep the stability of the system we will look for a different solution then.
Best,
Marta
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
You would have to change the elogd.c code and recompile. At some point you wlll however get crash of elogd with a stack overflow. If you need more than 100 attributes, it becomes anyhow hard to manage, so I would suggest other ways, like adding iformation to the text body etc.
Best,
Stefan
Dr Marta Divall wrote: |
The maximum number or attributes is 100.
Is it possible to increase this?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draft
|
Tue Apr 9 13:40:44 2024 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Linux | ELOG V3.1.4-395 | Re: today date in template | This was given to me by Andreas L,
In my elog.cfg file, I have the following:
Preset text = $shell(date '+[%d %b %y]')\n
and this puts at the top of every new thread I make today the following line
[09 Apr 24]
And for the same result for every reply as well, I have in elog.cfg
Prepend on reply = $shell(date '+[%d %b %y]')\n\n----------\n
with the ten dash characters to show the end of the thread, so the reply entry goes above the dashes.
Obviously time, name of day etc can be included by using the strftime
> > This is a nice idea, but currently no text substations in templates are implemented. It only works in attributes right now.
>
> but can it be done by javascript injection? load a custom .js or .html file, in this file run javascript code to root down the DOM tree until you
> find the right place, replace .innerHTML with current date?
>
> K.O. |
69781
|
Tue Apr 9 13:49:51 2024 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Linux | ELOG V3.1.4-395 | Re: today date in template | This was given to me by Andreas Luedeke of this parish.
In my elog.cfg file, I have the following:
Preset text = $shell(date '+[%d %b %y]')\n
and this puts at the top of every new thread I make today the following line
[09 Apr 24]
And for the same result for every reply as well, I have in elog.cfg
Prepend on reply = $shell(date '+[%d %b %y]')\n\n----------\n
with the ten dash characters to show the end of the thread, so the reply entry goes above the dashes.
Obviously time, name of day etc can be included by using the strftime codes.
> > This is a nice idea, but currently no text substations in templates are implemented. It only works in attributes right now.
>
> but can it be done by javascript injection? load a custom .js or .html file, in this file run javascript code to root down the DOM tree until you
> find the right place, replace .innerHTML with current date?
>
> K.O. |
|