From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0AB862BE3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 16:45:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 97A8822F20
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 16:45:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 12EA422F09
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 16:45:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CCAE745558;
 Mon, 21 Dec 2020 16:45:31 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <c40b0642-2a98-2636-1480-55261126c8db@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 16:45:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:85.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/85.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 alexandre derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>
References: <a22cf741-c1b6-309f-eecc-2149d4c23d45@jack.fr.eu.org>
 <20201203073603.GA455757@mala.proxmox.com>
 <26f40a2f-ae54-3971-afdb-b417057ecc82@odiso.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <26f40a2f-ae54-3971-afdb-b417057ecc82@odiso.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.584 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -3.299 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 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] ovf duplicate AddressOnParent
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:45:32 -0000

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!