From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBEB11FF170
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:02:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3015CEDD2;
	Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:02:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <102ce1fb-383d-4391-9c2a-c33f9fdecd40@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:02:08 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Mira Limbeck <m.limbeck@proxmox.com>,
 Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
References: <20240418091650.51366-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <20240418091650.51366-7-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <5b8d83bb-70de-46dc-bbd5-7cd71d4d1ee0@proxmox.com>
 <891f5346072232e5b4a9b1dabdfc54eea3b74170.camel@proxmox.com>
 <d205f7db-51fe-4afd-b0cb-5e94d344b07c@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d205f7db-51fe-4afd-b0cb-5e94d344b07c@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.025 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 7/7] report: add recent boot
 timestamps which may show fencing/crash events
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

I think having recent boot timestamps and kernel versions in the report
would be nice, I can think of some situations where having this info
available upfront would have sped things up.

I just checked, the patch still applies cleanly.

On 19/04/2024 10:56, Mira Limbeck wrote:
> [...]
> The kernel command line makes sense up there. I agree.
> But the reboots are often less interesting/important than the pveversion
> output.
> So I'd prefer the pveversion output to stay as far up as possible (after
> hostname, date and cmdline).

Regarding the placement of the `last` output, I agree with Mira though
-- I'd also prefer to keep pveversion as far up as possible.


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel