Recent content by Sascha

  1. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    ok. I think your users/clients will appreciate any kind of importance-distinction in your messages. Whatever you choose as illustration...
  2. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    You could also create a tab "Virtual Machines" (per Server or per Datacenter) where the user can view all virtual machines on one page like the old Proxmox GUI. Additional advantage: The user could start/stop VMs in one place and wouldn't need to switch around between different VMs anymore...
  3. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    I fully agree... beautiful solution... also fast to accomplish by the developers. Summerization of solutions: 1. relocating the button "remove VM" into the summary tab 2. red text/background/images in crucial confirmations concerning loss of data 3. default answer in crucial confirmations...
  4. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    I think you and your team did a great job. There is just a necessity to distinct messages advertising data-loss an other ones. And the default button for data-loss-cases should always be NO, not YES!!!!
  5. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    okay... On the other hand... a programmer should not expect that a user reads important messages among hundreds of unimportant messages which look similar. This would also call the sense of proxmox in question. In essential, Proxmox is a GUI, which helps to control KVM/OpenVZ... I think it...
  6. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    nice coincidence... especially that you're using iPhone...
  7. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    At this point I don't agree. The warnings are only clear in juristic way. If you delete a bunch of Hardware in several VMs/CTs, a "Are you sure..."-question is appearing in every single hardware deletion case - looking quiete similar like the question which pops up while deleting virtual...
  8. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    dito. Nevertheless, professional software like Proxmox should not unnecessarily bring forward crucial human mistakes which could end up in data-loss... Think probabilistic... Compare expectation value (for the whole mass of users) and cost of correction for this tiny problem... I had a...
  9. S

    New 2.6.32 Kernel (pvetest)

    I Just wanted to make sure that one can find this thread using the Keyword OCFS, thus: OCFS OCFS OCFS
  10. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    The most users won't intend to delete VMs very often. As I said... just renaming the buttons would be enough... Placing a checkbox into the "Are you sure?"-question would be most sophisticated. I renamed my buttons... I think this should be a serious topic for the developers as well - among...
  11. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    Sure, Proxmox asks again before deleting VMs. But it also asks the same way before deleting tiny things like virtual network-cards... And this cases of deletion are not equivalent in view of their consequences. And yes, life is dangerous, but I'm still living many years instead of keeping the...
  12. S

    Bug with cpuunits?

    The CPU unit adjustment seems to appear in the option of CTs only... not in VMs...
  13. S

    High risk of dataloss through human oversight

    Hello, at first: Proxmox 2 looks great, thank you so far... I sadly have to announce a small mistake in the conceptual design of the Proxmox web GUI: The "remove" button for removing VMs is located at the very top right corner of the Proxmox administrations webpage (in the near of the...