New ISO image for Proxmox VE 5.0 (installer bug fixes)

martin

martin

Proxmox Staff Member
Staff member
Apr 28, 2005
754
1,740
223
  • Like
Reactions: fireon, chrone and vooze
Hello Martin,

I've just installed a 3 nodes cluster with the old iso. What installer bugs you are talking about ?

Thanks,
 
TwiX said:
Hello Martin,

I've just installed a 3 nodes cluster with the old iso. What installer bugs you are talking about ?

Thanks,
Click to expand...

if installing worked for you, there is no reason to re-install using the new ISO. there were some bugs in some edge cases where installing was not possible, as well as some hardware compatibility fixes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrone
I've just tried to reinstall a Tarox Server, I have done a first setup 3 weeks OK which went fine. But after a failed clustering test I wanted/needed to reinstall.

The Problem ist I can't get further than the GPL.
iCokKm.jpg


So please gi'me a link to the older revision of the file, because with that version I could install ...

THX Mircsicz

EDIT: Yes I've tried at the machine's screen too... ;-)
 
do not boot in uefi mode (see mainboard bios)
 
tom said:
do not boot in uefi mode (see mainboard bios)
Click to expand...
What if you MUST boot in UEFI mode to make it work. For example, when installing onto and using NVMe as boot media on most Supermicro motherboards (which is only supported in NVMe and not legacy mode)?

Note that the installer actually works - you just have to memorize/script the keyboard responses for the things you can't see because the screen resolution is wrong.

What I don't understand is why this is still happening. The problem has existed since at least 4.1 and there has been ample time to fix it.
 
As I read here it's possible to navigate with good old "Alt-X" commands...

For me it was "Alt-J" what allowed me to continue, all the later pages worked with "Alt-N". The Reboot is to be triggerd by "Alt-R"

Greetz
Mircsicz
 
Last edited:
mircsicz said:
As I read here it's possible to navigate with good old "Alt-X" commands...

For me it was "Alt-j" what allowed me to continue, all the later pages worked with "Alt-n"

Greetz
Mircsicz
Click to expand...
Yes. Correct. Awkward, but correct, which probably explains why people complain but don't actually scream about it. If/when the "script" for getting through the installer pages changes you'll have to re-draft the working sequence of keyboard shortcuts again.
 
PigLover said:
Yes. Correct. Awkward, but correct, which probably explains why people complain but don't actually scream about it. If/when the "script" for getting through the installer pages changes you'll have to re-draft the working sequence of keyboard shortcuts again.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if this problem is actually fixed .
 
BTW have you noticed the naming-scheme for your iso-images is a bit misleading? Not sure how it is on Windows, but on Linux the standard "ls" (without additional switches or locales-tweaks) produces output:
...
proxmox-ve_5.0-5ab26bc-5.iso
proxmox-ve_5.0-af4267bf-4.iso
...
I mean "proxmox-ve_5.0-5ab26bc-5.iso" is listed before "proxmox-ve_5.0-af4267bf-4.iso", althought "proxmox-ve_5.0-5ab26bc-5.iso" has been released later. But just looking at "ls" output one might think "proxmox-ve_5.0-af4267bf-4.iso" is later release, as it is listed below...

Not sure how you use those major/minor number, but maybe you could use "sub-minor" number for bugfix releses, i.e. 5.0.0, 5.0.1, etc. so that the latest image is listed as the latest, as it is common...
 
Rhinox said:
Not sure how you use those major/minor number, but maybe you could use "sub-minor" number for bugfix releses, i.e. 5.0.0, 5.0.1, etc. so that the latest image is listed as the latest, as it is common...
Click to expand...

The ISO release has already some sort of "subminor" number, i.e. the one at the back ("-5"/"-4" in your example), this can be used to determine which one was released later.
But yes, granted, putting this number before the git shorthash (which tells you from what pve-manager commit the ISO was build) would make ls sort it chronological correct, most times.

In general you really really should not determine anything from the standard ls sort, as it is a lexicographical sort[1] not a numerical one, this means even that three released files named
  • 0.1.0-1.iso
  • 0.1.0-9.iso
  • 0.1.0-10.iso
would order with standard ls as:
Code: 
# ls -1 0*
0.1.0-10.iso
0.1.0-1.iso
0.1.0-9.iso

You would need to use the "-v" switch from ls to force a numerical sort.

So long story short, ls default order is not always intuitive and should never be relied anyway. And checking the md5/sha sum should be good practice - so you'd see at that point that you got the old ISO.
So not totally sure how much a naming scheme change would have an positive effect - the number is put last for a reason too, humans can normally spot it more easily there, AFAIK. :)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographical_order
 
  • Like
Reactions: gsupp
You must log in or register to reply here.

About

The Proxmox community has been around for many years and offers help and support for Proxmox VE, Proxmox Backup Server, and Proxmox Mail Gateway.
We think our community is one of the best thanks to people like you!

Quick Navigation

Home Get Subscription Wiki Downloads Proxmox Customer Portal About

Get your subscription!

The Proxmox team works very hard to make sure you are running the best software and getting stable updates and security enhancements, as well as quick enterprise support. Tens of thousands of happy customers have a Proxmox subscription. Get yours easily in our online shop.

Buy now!
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Top Bottom
Back