From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr> 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 9961572913 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:33:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 832A528D11 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out-102.di.u-psud.fr (smtp-out-102.di.u-psud.fr [129.175.213.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 69DBB28D05 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:33:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out-2.di.u-psud.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.di.u-psud.fr (UPS-MTA-OUT) with ESMTP id 4FKKHY5ZW2zdnc for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pmx2.di.u-psud.fr (pmx2.di.u-psud.fr [129.175.212.153]) by smtp-out-2.di.u-psud.fr (UPS-MTA-OUT) with ESMTP id 4FKKHY5Skpzbc5s for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-in-2.di.u-psud.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (UPS-PMX) with SMTP id 4FKKHY5PSvz1qr9r for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [129.175.212.70] (smtps.u-psud.fr [129.175.212.70]) (UPS-MTA) (Authenticated sender: alain.pean via 192.168.71.7) with ESMTPSA id 4FKKHY3kbxz7f for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Reply-To: alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <d9bce6e0-d6ba-7492-d335-30a49950e06a@riminilug.it> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Alain_P=c3=a9an?= <alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr> Message-ID: <b8bd884e-b3f3-f08f-cbaa-5a1b043d13b2@c2n.upsaclay.fr> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:57:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <d9bce6e0-d6ba-7492-d335-30a49950e06a@riminilug.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: fr Authentication-Results: smtps.u-psud.fr; auth=pass smtp.auth=alain.pean smtp.mailfrom=alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4FKKHY3kbxz7f X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1 Sending domain does not have any anti-forgery methods NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 -0.001 Average reputation (+2) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_NONE 0.001 SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 0.001 Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 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: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:33:41 -0000 Le 13/04/2021 à 10:05, Piviul a écrit : > I ask[¹] 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. Hi Piviul, My guess would be that your nodes would have different versions of Proxmox packages. And not the same proxmox interface on each... The best thing would be to have the complete version of each package wich 'pveversion -v', but a shorter first information is to display, and copy paste just version here ? # pveversion Thanks Alain -- Administrateur Système/Réseau C2N Centre de Nanosciences et Nanotechnologies (UMR 9001) Boulevard Thomas Gobert (ex Avenue de La Vauve), 91120 Palaiseau Tel : 01-70-27-06-88 Bureau A255