> I checked your elogd.cfg: The flag is called "Expand default" not "Expand" as 
> you had it. With "Expand default = 0" it works fine. Just RTFM...

i could probably recite the manual from memory :/ i wouldn't ask if i wasn't confused about something.

i thought the 'default' word was explaining what the default was for the 'expand' flag, not an actual part of the flag. 

I have some problem with email notification
for some logbooks I would like to notify only to specific adress
I try
Email All = adress1, adress2

Elog send well at 'adress1' and 'adress2' 
but also to all of other users ?
how to restric these only to 'adress1 and adress2 ?

is it possible to notify according to attribue value like

Attributes = Test1, Test2
Email All = $Test1

or concatenation of  $Test1 + '@mba.be' for example

Thanks

this is a wonderfull tools !
to improve documentation : true example are missing too much 'theorie'
but when I'm finish I'll put true sample on the net 

Was wondering if there were any tweaks/suggestions for improving the 
logbooks responsiviness.  Our logbook was started 31 July 01.  Since that 
time we have went from 1 logbook to 4 logbooks.  Logbook 1 having 2651 
entries, logbook 2 having 300 entries, and the last 2 are new logbooks, so 
only a few entries.

When user launches the logbook website, it takes considerable time to bring 
the site up.  It seems to be directly related to the number of entries in 
the logbook.  If I set up a dummy site with a couple logbooks and only a 
few entries, the logbook is very fast coming up as well as saving entries.

Another thing that seems to slow the site down, is the number of users in 
the elog notification list (those who've subscribed).  When you save a log 
entry, it takes around 30sec or longer for it to actually complete the 
save.  If I remove the list of users from the notification list and just 
have a few, the save is very fast.


Thanks in advance,

Eric

> Was wondering if there were any tweaks/suggestions for improving the 
> logbooks responsiviness.  Our logbook was started 31 July 01.  Since that 
> time we have went from 1 logbook to 4 logbooks.  Logbook 1 having 2651 
> entries, logbook 2 having 300 entries, and the last 2 are new logbooks, so 
> only a few entries.
> 
> When user launches the logbook website, it takes considerable time to bring 
> the site up.  It seems to be directly related to the number of entries in 
> the logbook.  If I set up a dummy site with a couple logbooks and only a 
> few entries, the logbook is very fast coming up as well as saving entries.
> 
> Another thing that seems to slow the site down, is the number of users in 
> the elog notification list (those who've subscribed).  When you save a log 
> entry, it takes around 30sec or longer for it to actually complete the 
> save.  If I remove the list of users from the notification list and just 
> have a few, the save is very fast.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Eric

2600 entries is too much for this application as it load the all files 
in computer memory
expand the server memory
Are you running on linux or Windows ? I suggest linux (faster)
We are working on the C source to move all data from flat to database like 
SQL or mysql
when a parameter flag like 'status' = "OK" for instance
I suggest also to split in several logbook
but this is depend on your 'ELOG' parametrisation and logics

If your data are not 'sensitive' I can check on my linux server

Etienne

> Another thing that seems to slow the site down, is the number of users in 
> the elog notification list (those who've subscribed).  When you save a log 
> entry, it takes around 30sec or longer for it to actually complete the 
> save.  If I remove the list of users from the notification list and just 
> have a few, the save is very fast.

This problem will be fixed in version 2.2.5. Prior to 2.2.5, individual 
emails were sent to all recipients. Since each email takes 0.5-1 sec., this 
procedure can be very long. From 2.2.5 on, only one email is sent, but to 
all recipients. The disadvantage of this method is that the "Mail to:" field 
contains the email addresses of all recipients, so each recipient knows the 
addresses of the other, which is maybe not always what you want. I put a new 
option to discard the "Mail to:" field, but some systems the consider the 
mail with a missing "Mail to:" field as spam mail. 2.2.5 will be released in 
a couple of days.

> 2600 entries is too much for this application as it load the all files 
> in computer memory
> expand the server memory
> Are you running on linux or Windows ? I suggest linux (faster)
> We are working on the C source to move all data from flat to database like 
> SQL or mysql
> when a parameter flag like 'status' = "OK" for instance
> I suggest also to split in several logbook
> but this is depend on your 'ELOG' parametrisation and logics
> 
> If your data are not 'sensitive' I can check on my linux server
> 
> Etienne

It is not correct that all files are loaded into memory. Only the index 
resides in memory, the data stays on disk. In my environment, I see no speed 
difference between Windows and Linux. Moving to SQL will certainly not speed 
up the responsiveness in my opinion. So before working on that, create a SQL 
database with your 2600 entries and see how fast you can make queries on 
them.

The problem with the slow response is new to me. Other users mentioned no 
problem with logbooks with several throusand entries (except for the "find" 
command). But I will have a look myself in the next feature and see if I can 
make things better.

- Stefan

> I have some problem with email notification
> for some logbooks I would like to notify only to specific adress
> I try
> Email All = adress1, adress2
> 
> Elog send well at 'adress1' and 'adress2' 
> but also to all of other users ?
> how to restric these only to 'adress1 and adress2 ?

Some implementations rely on the fact the email is sent to all users plus a 
few other addresses. What I can do is put in another flag like "Supress 
email to users = 1" which would satisfy both requirements.

> is it possible to notify according to attribue value like
> 
> Attributes = Test1, Test2
> Email All = $Test1
> 
> or concatenation of  $Test1 + '@mba.be' for example

This is not possible right now, but I can put it on the wishlist.

> to improve documentation : true example are missing too much 'theorie'
> but when I'm finish I'll put true sample on the net 

I fully agree, so if someone has nice examples, I'm delighted to put them 
into an "examples" section of the documentation.

- Stefan

if you are guest in the find option  

select 'all logbook'

it will display all 'attributes' from other logbook 
with no option  'guest command ...'
but having the same 'attribute' name

Solution :
**********
I use the copy to command to make a copy to other logbook
with option 'guest command' enabled

in this section I remove some field so the guest user can't no see all field

I suggest to give acces to 'guest' on a second run of elog to another
port or other computer ?

> if you are guest in the find option  
> 
> select 'all logbook'
> 
> it will display all 'attributes' from other logbook 
> with no option  'guest command ...'
> but having the same 'attribute' name
> 
> Solution :
> **********
> I use the copy to command to make a copy to other logbook
> with option 'guest command' enabled
> 
> in this section I remove some field so the guest user can't no see all field
> 
> I suggest to give acces to 'guest' on a second run of elog to another
> port or other computer ?

I see your problem. I could either disable the "Search all logbooks" switch 
for certain logbooks (like the guest one), or restrict the search to logbooks 
which have a "guest command" option. What would you prefer?

- Stefan