From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209D41FF180 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 11:50:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 69AE61506D; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 11:51:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <7646ff4e-3db5-4768-8ae3-e79c212bae4d@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 11:51:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Stefan Hanreich References: <20250731140855.573717-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20250731140855.573717-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1754041859795 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.044 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox{-ve-rs, , -backup, -firewall, -network-interface-pinning} v4 00/10] proxmox-network-interface-pinning X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" Tested: - Installed packages build with patches applied on top of PBS4 testing repo patchset (including latest proxmox-widget-toolkit) - Created multiple NICs, created bridge and attached 2 NICs as ports - Checked the network config is applied on reboot - Generated pinned nic names, verified network config after reboot - Generated VLAN, basic connnectivity testing via ping and monitoring via tcpdump - Added influxdb (udp) as metric server Apart from the nic altnames which would be nice to also have in PBS (analogous to PVE), didn't notice anything wrong/broken. Is there anything blocking us from doing so, now that the altnames are also part of the api response? Independent from that, with an up to date proxmox-widget-toolkit consider this: Tested-by: Christian Ebner _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel