From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 811331FF17A for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:45:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C76DC10DB5; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:45:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <66ee9a89-9856-4892-92e0-798084774860@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:45:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: Content-Language: en-US From: Friedrich Weber In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1762879488297 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.012 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: [pve-devel] [PATCH] iscsi: fix excessive connection test spam on storage monitoring 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Hi Stelios, On 11/11/2025 00:25, Stelios Vailakakis wrote: >> So if I understand correctly, after applying only your hostname patch on >> top of an up-to-date libpve-storage-perl, you are still seeing the >> "connection lost" entries on the iSCSI target? Can you double-check the >> version of libpve-storage-perl (e.g. using `pveversion -v | grep >> libpve-storage`) on top of which you applied your hostname patch? Could >> you post the (anonymized) output of `iscsiadm -m node` and `iscsiadm -m >> session` on nodes 1-4 and 5? > > For clarity, the connection lost entries no longer occur after applying my patch on all previously mentioned PVE stacks as well as within 9.01 which I recently upgraded to. Since your patch for allowing hostnames in $ISCSI_TARGET_RE was already applied for PVE9.0 [1], your initial patch doesn't apply cleanly anymore on top of current pve-storage. Just so we are on the same page regarding the patch we're discussing, could you send the patch you now applied on your PVE9 node, rebased on current pve-storage? > > Current environment is proxmox1 - patched, proxmox2 - default. I will show icsiadm output on a "good" proxmox1 vs "bad" proxmox2. > > 12345 is a placeholder for domain, IP addresses irrelevant and made up. I will leave my proxmox2 node unpatched in case we need any more information. > > #Version sanity check > root@proxmox1:~# pveversion -v | grep 'libpve-storage\|pve-manager' > pve-manager: 9.0.11 (running version: 9.0.11/3bf5476b8a4699e2) > libpve-storage-perl: 9.0.13 > > root@proxmox2:~# pveversion -v | grep 'libpve-storage\|pve-manager' > pve-manager: 9.0.11 (running version: 9.0.11/3bf5476b8a4699e2) > libpve-storage-perl: 9.0.13 > > > #proxmox1 iscsiadm > root@proxmox1:~# iscsiadm -m node > nas.12345.com:3260,4294967295 iqn.2024-01.com.12345.vm-stor > nas.12345.com:3260,4294967295 iqn.2025-06.com.12345.ssd-vm-stor > root@proxmox1:~# iscsiadm -m session > tcp: [1] 192.168.1.10:3260,1 iqn.2024-01.com.12345.vm-stor (non-flash) > tcp: [2] 192.168.1.10:3260,1 iqn.2025-06.com.12345.ssd-vm-stor (non-flash) > > #proxmox2 icsiadm > root@proxmox2:~# iscsiadm -m node > nas.12345.com:3260,4294967295 iqn.2024-01.com.12345.vm-stor > nas.12345.com:3260,4294967295 iqn.2025-06.com.12345.ssd-vm-stor > root@proxmox2:~# iscsiadm -m session > tcp: [1] 192.168.1.10:3260,1 iqn.2025-06.com.12345.ssd-vm-stor (non-flash) > tcp: [2] 192.168.1.10:3260,1 iqn.2024-01.com.12345.vm-stor (non-flash) > I don't currently have a test setup where the target advertises a portal via its hostname, hence my question: Do I understand correctly that `iscsiadm -m node` shows the hostname, and `iscsiadm -m session` shows the IP the hostname resolves to? And nas.12345.com resolves to 192.168.1.10? Best wishes, Friedrich [1] https://lore.proxmox.com/all/175433311513.1860744.14234184790651115057.b4-ty@proxmox.com/ [2] https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Developer_Documentation _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel