God really STRANGE and problematic effect on 2.5.5-1 (can't remember it this
was with 2.5.5 or 2.5.4-X but i'm nearly sure it worked well):

Entering a date (Formate Bithday = date) may crash down the server:
Value is 22.2.2004: Everything is well
Value is 22.2.1962: Server crashes emmediatly (menas restarzing several
times, always the same problem)

I do not have time to check true all the years for finding out where the
problem may beginn, sorry. Also I was not able to check on other systems
right now. My system: Win XP Pro SP 1, IE 6 as well as Mozilla Calssic 1.7.3. 

Didn't check it under Linux right know in case of a lot work.

Clould you this fix please Stefan???  THANK'X!!!

For some reason it looses the "m" so line 5 instead of having
"hh:mm" has "hh: m"


Please ideas ;)
Cheers,
GL.

For some reason it looses the "m" so line 5 instead of having
"hh:mm" has "hh: m"


Please ideas ;)
Cheers,
GL.

I ended with 125384 entries like the one above.

Everything works fine but ......... [U]tteerrrriibbllee[/U] [B]slow[/B].  CPU usage is constant at 99%.  

I tried to split the one file produced by the import into 2 chunks but that did not improve the situation.

My question is : Is there a rule of thumb for the size of the "database" in which elog keeps it's performance, or better : is there a solution for this for elog.


 

We have been running elog for a couple of years now and this morning it stopped working.

We have tried to rstart it and it says successful start but still does not run, when doing a restart it says stop failed start success.

Does anyone have any ideas.

thanks

Hi Stefan,

I had started to write a completely different bug report, but then realised I had not checked a detail.  I had written about one sentence.  So I decided to abort the message, and hit the "back" button.  Only I found that this had created a new entry in the elog listings.  I immediately went in and deleted it, but I had expected the "Back" button to have aborted the entry (as it does in 2.9.x) not to submit the entry!

It doesn't seem to have created an email, though.  And for the sake of all your users, I'd not want to experiment here on the matter too much!

Is there a way to limit access to an attribute "Reviewed by" to only supervisors?

Thank you for your help

Mike