From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 3681765BAB for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 20:05:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 28F275DD8 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 20:05:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.17.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 5017F5DCD for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 20:05:27 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1646766321; bh=S5TJpPfbCVortCQzxVmTi0XrvPonvcXhsopdMzcH1sQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=qkiiVo5rKcOToGpKxpUzAPNjh+MIkzpSS4cCnRkFRQN8JuJz1p6AoJjSKopI/Y4D9 hr4ssodP+roo9ekJgDLWBZIYNbssL23iBJJymXY1zc3XhI0smRTbSfLtXhgYKgmz/m 8lqqTK+N7wMkCRJgv0cxvvvt38K5EFoNak1Wf1w8= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from [10.6.0.3] ([79.216.122.137]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb106 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N4vRm-1o8S0i19uu-010wox; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 20:00:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 20:00:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0 To: Proxmox VE user list , Patrick Wade References: From: Roland In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:DU9edkIvN6AneEC2FhYMunbGq1XZFAaKqS0UCK2TiQjrK2sxdcn lQOUI4JgDfcYw4NVx5j921rYnVk3HzIPyy9oRCv5xSObkTJAjAHkgEyTdQE9qkejSgEmVYi wXVeWZCkjeTs73D7ES90EqVEbvug5Kcnsqre8Y2m1LoVLerQFnzhRa/ECz8UCDi2yrspLpH goM/khmHnj2ElJv7sjT9Q== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:aF8WGaItBnE=:cMkckT7vV6hHSbAozFI+AQ RWb7lNhrTmrHkxyCl2YLR1pT25palRS6dgF/iWyV3MFDBb9/uaTOjcvnrCn0jtSExZo4JxlxG MtFZggnq8Znl52LbRP8+sFmMkNWoGVFzRGmS5ItFUYYDtSN4/7OcqXZYmjkMr6Hwew4QqiA0Q QzDLTpsnVCwT3dkzBFqL8vNtmC59IfNm20uhmMIrGdZwkK7ZyPmj9nkuLeqnzDdJQwonLMhBt EsiV1o7hGcXaCExwEv8abRn5UjSOLdlKMkL6PUZTsL1PyQCIdTs9bXtg90LbdZb2TNCp08RZs vEG8S4lEoIhSYLdpc85Ijvruhc6glbycYHQh95V19BiDXgs9iW0rDAzdtiJ5s5PDFghBXygZk XnIXIJNbka+fy/vE81YShHd4JTyv4fZHXE+YyOtakzcnTV9Md+XCOieki+VlNX/MkKVoCes/N PmyTxSG2Vy6J/XAUyYIvIF0kurJHbboBd9e1hN8xPW8R/K24NL87QoMRb3q246PH5PlomgJNS zjR93/3GVqwaBmVnKSB+UYJTSC66DS6rSlgi4AfL5eDBbHfoyP8cOSEntoUiZgmjbhqIh0Evz WnUnPejFRtyZdizZgamVaAVSMrMa53WV1Mj+yVpClzZ2lsOOVaKaoOEh3MVZofY7BHsfKoFDU vmv1+9yR1QFFgXNalY4X96NlYcE/6GyM9LITCg4/T8nVNWMnArcbIrTheMzP3QwGkv8G5K3Ul 2X3l/gHwXrZE+Z3NzIuqpSUomwbWpHngErQd/urjWOHUNFLmRm4UJSa5FXce267s01D7SMIhM KKOU+U74kFKL1SlXRugiMuXSjGdjemzH4lB7F07hin7QCTESBVnZwFiaY/P44fCSN3NqYOMqX L9frNX3QgYe48ASaO3wb4E0wQbUY8vhuZl3c+cm4DU+PPbGmgeTtR9JV4OZRfFh9qz/mzhIA1 RXAHRqCXIi6e3IA5iTuQGKhX4NZP8lnn+SlXptyXriZx53bWJsEZcw6lCMHe5TcQiPBHVXU12 5+g6U0SN5CaqC87o/sEpycjp4IOXUV3TrFzi+pTZdBzfqxJo2Dctp0csSJ8jsONWhSecAlrEJ U3qYVuzRYl4vtg= X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.607 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [stackexchange.com, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Debian guests losing track of drive sequence? X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 19:05:28 -0000 that's not a proxmox issue but general linux issue. solution: use persistent device names https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/530517/persistent-disk-name-dev-sdx-changing-with-almost-every-reboot there is lot's of more info on that on the net... roland Am 08.03.22 um 19:12 schrieb Patrick Wade: > I have a PVE 7.1-10 environment with several Debian 11 guests; in some of these guests, I have added a second, scsi1 virtual hard disk in addition to the scsi0 boot virtual disk. I have referenced these as /dev/sda and /dev/sdb in /etc/fstab in the guest. > > From time to time, when rebooting the guest, the drives are mounted in the wrong order; the content that was in /dev/sdb1 is mounted as the root partition, as if it were /dev/sda1. > > What am I missing that I need to do to ensure the guest mounts its virtual disks in the correct manner? > > -- > Patrick R. Wade > > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user >