[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** troubles with new 1.6.1.2 installation

[Sharp, Chris]

Hi Alan,

In my experience, the only way to find out what's going wrong is to look in the Evergreen logs.  On a default installation these will exist in /openils/var/log and the one you're probably looking for is "open-ils.ingest-unix.log", though you might check "vandelay_unix.log" as well.  You might tail -f those logs while you try an import to see what's going wrong.

I've also noticed there are some import utilities in the "extras" directory in the downloaded source (you might have to view the source in some cases to know how they are used).  I've not used them before, but they may be more manageable than the interface currently is, since it does not report errors very well (IMHO ;-) ).

As always, those who know more than me about this are welcome to make corrections where needed.

Chris Sharp
PINES Program Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(404) 235-7147
csharp at georgialibraries.org
http://pines.georgialibraries.org/

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Krueger" <alan at trigonic.com>
> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 3:34:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** troubles with new 1.6.1.2 installation
> On 9/9/2010 11:30 PM, Alan Krueger wrote:
> > I exported the holdings from Follett and tried to import them into
> > Evergreen. The import progress screen kept going for multiple days
> > and then hung at 98%. Viewing the upload queue, it looks like it
> > imported everything, but even though I selected the option to import
> > holdings, it doesn't look like that took.
> I should probably call this out.
> 
> Any idea what I did wrong when I used the staff client's MARC Import
> feature and clicked the checkbox to import holdings? The import queue
> claimed all 8k+ titles were imported, but the 12k+ copies included in
> the MARC21 file did not appear afterwards.
> 
> I'm wondering if it got stuck in that process somewhere (the 98%)
> above
> then somehow got rolled back.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alan Krueger