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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F32B862C5B for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:05:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DEFED23A28 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:04:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A10D923A1B for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:04:29 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id g185so11579024wmf.3 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:04:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=odiso-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=0BUUttSLSpy3oc9CGsye88s2CxKJoIDMw/Bb1VNft7k=; b=JOxZNn31c+Px6ljoVNK2tR9qiuPg6HK97joHA7u6xaOAbdl4cXzPtDJ0+E2OauO+3b eUGugMLzR8u6/Saeyrvj2BJoy4X1Ppu4fWocVlMwcPAdlWLsJsWzXzD9AP/es4IGGZZp VVSfgPOQIY1E4GYc+dNkXkN2JI1MK7jONbCObjIbcCKYbnSDd2nhetfIo5lUJmvGQhPC irx4h9LwJYJWmkQCDLrABNyp+mXZP2rz8XuXChIFv0j6rpXJq/rPSewrjWpXo2jfvEop 9SmBLmNfBcd7Mnz/H41kDNUcG9c1jt4XoADj/maE9uM7QB6VrPXpBy0+tOGnrysnTYPW 5OaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=0BUUttSLSpy3oc9CGsye88s2CxKJoIDMw/Bb1VNft7k=; b=N1tgJehhncqVFvHM1E7nI7YuUNAwCJH42Z0yED4taunsNn73MCQOrrUQnVc0HuiAJl hTAfynAwCSEYZaF1pq9/YLt97mRU1glMovMUqsuAxlNNtYH0cWw3g3NZfDrbfMVeSpXx arQHp+6SZIeWP933HQsQPKJwvv2O9YFWu1sQERJ1Vzkr6hgq6jgvkWc55XJEG0lHCiFc y8jWwEHyc1qu6Lz35gV0c71qPnOb0gqmcjw3MKnOkLBNXeezjEVXIblVeTsN7vODAO2o abVOMcr/LqpWRO1kgLPy6zgDPrxPwCcEctBzHCHDz6G2EFYl1ilVk0ghnXfUjt0jkFnw haMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+qQFgQ8q5kRcOC4MNtyc+jjDNo1PRmwRzEyLgxduLfH0NPA8f tqcD2IIHriRZc2bNTSytKTPNqKxCV2hLsdYJshM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYUV6HjoZOxI7LJQZLGvQSCyljVcyeNk6GiSK8ZS1GufFeXf63X/EpBzhLkU106yQPAZERLg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2288:: with SMTP id i130mr17745125wmi.78.1608570263195; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2a0a:1580:0:1::100c? (ovpn1.odiso.net. [2a0a:1580:2000::3f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h184sm23136415wmh.23.2020.12.21.09.04.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:04:22 -0800 (PST) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20201203073603.GA455757@mala.proxmox.com> <26f40a2f-ae54-3971-afdb-b417057ecc82@odiso.com> From: alexandre derumier Message-ID: <495cb97d-d453-7ac6-617d-e95101fa832a@odiso.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:04:21 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.369 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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 NICE_REPLY_A -3.299 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record T_SPF_TEMPERROR 0.01 SPF: test of record failed (temperror) Subject: Re: [pve-devel] ovf duplicate AddressOnParent X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 17:05:04 -0000 mmm, seem that AddressOnParent is indeed the disk location on the controller, but on the provided ovf example, they are 2 differents controllers (parent=4 && parent=5) (I don't known how vmware manage disk, 1controller with multliples disk, or 1controller by disk. Maybe it's related to vm machine version or config.) But in the proxmox ovf parser, we only handle 1 controller # extract corresponding Controller node details my $adress_on_controller = $xpc->findvalue('rasd:AddressOnParent', $item_node); my $pve_disk_address = id_to_pve($controller_type) . $adress_on_controller; that's why we have a conflict here On 21/12/2020 16:45, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 21/12/2020 16:32, alexandre derumier wrote: >> On 03/12/2020 08:36, Dominic Jäger wrote: >>> Please try changing the AddressOnParent values so that they are unique. >>> As you mentioned, the disks should then be attached with different numbers scsi0, scsi1, scsi2... >> Hi, >> >> I wonder if the current proxmox ovs parser is not wrong. >> >> Seem than "adressOnParent" is the pci controller. >> >> So, it's working fine for nic,  but for disks , if ovf have multiple disks on same controller, it'll be always the same AddressOnParent. >> > That would sound likely, but did not actually looked into it. > >> I'll to check with differents hypervisors ovf export to be sure. > thanks! >