From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <piviul@riminilug.it> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA63873BC8 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:17:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 984B525D31 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:16:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 15.mo6.mail-out.ovh.net (15.mo6.mail-out.ovh.net [188.165.39.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 5F01025D1D for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:16:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from player763.ha.ovh.net (unknown [10.110.208.220]) by mo6.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE5824B29A for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:16:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from riminilug.it (host-79-7-69-158.business.telecomitalia.it [79.7.69.158]) (Authenticated sender: piviul@riminilug.it) by player763.ha.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F05C1D320469 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: garm.ovh; auth=pass (GARM-99G003ea5020ae-3b33-41ae-b2a0-e9ed2faa6031, 84660C106381481073A11435522C8989BF251495) smtp.auth=piviul@riminilug.it X-OVh-ClientIp: 79.7.69.158 To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <d9bce6e0-d6ba-7492-d335-30a49950e06a@riminilug.it> From: Piviul <piviul@riminilug.it> Message-ID: <3e550f7c-4f26-3573-63e8-d1e544096b82@riminilug.it> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:16:26 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <d9bce6e0-d6ba-7492-d335-30a49950e06a@riminilug.it> Content-Language: it-IT X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11257591697285305374 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudelhedgjeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuqfggjfdpvefjgfevmfevgfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecuhedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtreertdefleenucfhrhhomheprfhivhhiuhhluceophhivhhiuhhlsehrihhmihhnihhluhhgrdhitheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephedvteejhfelgefhhefgveevleevgeefudeiiefhgeeghfehheeviefflefgtedvnecukfhppedtrddtrddtrddtpdejledrjedrieelrdduheeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhpqdhouhhtpdhhvghlohepphhlrgihvghrjeeifedrhhgrrdhovhhhrdhnvghtpdhinhgvtheptddrtddrtddrtddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpihhvihhulhesrhhimhhinhhilhhughdrihhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhvvgdquhhsvghrsehlihhsthhsrdhprhhogihmohigrdgtohhm X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.162 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 0.001 Good reputation (+3) RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 0.001 Mailspike good senders SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Edit: Boot Order mask X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:17:08 -0000 Il 13/04/21 10:05, Piviul ha scritto: > I ask[ยน] about this little problem on the forum but nobody found a > solution, so I try here... > > In my PVE the mask where I can change the Boot Order options of a VM > is not ever the same. If I access to the mask from 2 nodes (say node1 > and node2) the mask is a simple html form with only combo boxes. On > the third node (say node3) the mask is more sophisticated, can support > the drag and drop, has checkbox... in other word it's different. So I > would like to know why my three nodes doesn't have the same mask even > if they are at the same proxmox version and if there is a way that all > nodes shows the same mask. > > I ask you because this is not only a layout problem; if I modify the > boot order options from the node3, I can see strange chars in the PVE > gui of the other two nodes but if I configure the boot order options > from node1 or node2 all seems works flawless. The problem has been solved reinstalling pve-manager with the command # apt install --reinstall pve-manager |Thank you very much to all list members Have a great day! Piviul | || ||