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 1A0AB730AE
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:16:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0949E11BF3
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:15:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp-out-84.di.u-psud.fr (smtp-out-84.di.u-psud.fr
[129.175.213.84])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 82B6811BE8
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:15:57 +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 4FL6yv1ht8z1BRB
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:15:51 +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 4FL6yv1WgNzbgZy
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:15:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp-in-2.di.u-psud.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by localhost (UPS-PMX) with SMTP id 4FL6yv1QqRz1qr9m
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:15:51 +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
4FL6yt6BJYzHS
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:15:50 +0200 (CEST)
Reply-To: alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr
To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
References: <d9bce6e0-d6ba-7492-d335-30a49950e06a@riminilug.it>
<b8bd884e-b3f3-f08f-cbaa-5a1b043d13b2@c2n.upsaclay.fr>
<5c3d06aa-1bf8-ca1b-e826-3d2615685b9d@riminilug.it>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Alain_P=c3=a9an?= <alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr>
Message-ID: <da7f1512-5fa6-1bb4-a878-7035f8100454@c2n.upsaclay.fr>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:15:29 +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: <5c3d06aa-1bf8-ca1b-e826-3d2615685b9d@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: 4FL6yt6BJYzHS
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
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:16:28 -0000
Le 14/04/2021 à 09:37, Piviul a écrit :
> I Alain, first of all thank you very much indeed to you and to all
> people answered this thread. I reply your message but the infos here
> should answer even the infos asked from Alwin...
>
> I send directly the output differences from the command pveversion
> with -v flag because all three nodes show the same
> "pve-manager/6.3-6/2184247e (running kernel: 5.4.106-1-pve)" version.
>
> So I have launched the following command in all three nodes:
>
> # pveversion -v > pveversion.$(hostname)
>
> obtaining 3 differents files and I've done the diff between the first
> two files (referring to pve01 and pve02) and as expected there is no
> difference:
>
> $ diff pveversion.pve0{1,2}
>
> Then I have done the diff between the first and the third node and
> this is the result:
>
> $ diff pveversion.pve0{1,3}
> 5d4
> < pve-kernel-5.3: 6.1-6
> 8,9c7
> < pve-kernel-5.3.18-3-pve: 5.3.18-3
> < pve-kernel-5.3.10-1-pve: 5.3.10-1
> ---
> > pve-kernel-5.4.34-1-pve: 5.4.34-2
>
> there are some little differences yes but in kernel that are not in
> use any more (in all 3 nodes uname -r shows 5.4.106-1-pve)...
>
> Attached you can find all three files hoping the system doesn't cut them.
>
> Please can I ask you if you have a 6.3 node in your installations that
> was previously in 6.2 version (i.e. not installed directly in 6.3
> version)? Can you tell me if the "Boot order" musk is the one with
> only combo boxes or the more evoluted drag and drop musk?
Hi Piviul,
I don't think only a difference in kernel could explain this difference
in the web interface, if the other packages are the same. Did you try to
clear the cache in your web browsers ?
The attached files are indeed there. I looked at the versions, and all
three appears up to date, so for me, the only origin that I can suppose
could be the browser cache.
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