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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CD7960593 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:51:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 70FD710A1C for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:51:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (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 74BD610A08 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:51:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id z14so2096327ljm.1 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:51:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=bmU0ci/ochYc8mz6Pl3LRifm88YxHaQH/PFkdvhoy28=; b=cHx0RTBcLm8Rr5ndNdNIxaXlK/CXn8+L0j7DyhfM2tsl0bhNWKkik3/FWcyyImjnea 4U6Vf01iZnQEl/sGT11ixQMCCrdJn3ko+DskMZYgXnlsc9DFjz+iV/LZKawfTwwfm0X0 HHZtjfsbv0bj/RxyVfWTvFUqH95JDFAU5E9dUfjnRZ4hdsvQSF4zoKCX8cr6NJ5ITTM3 BPAjLsNwnM8E0A0BaxY42r1ITT80IBpeANtVwAWdpdXUELacc9SvKLXUuwYziuEOPCKq X8fZDAmfBSKbiirMJoaESkfyUB7+p6Yz0HgbcLgizLikDJvmGn+J9bfJjeR/HW4dpedR O5pA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=bmU0ci/ochYc8mz6Pl3LRifm88YxHaQH/PFkdvhoy28=; b=naFFPRefBoE8RH0GIcA3DfCxOxk2OGN/XvuiqO3cJq/if867404i3Z8x3Cy5nfpGws v62bTqB/+CkMAJXJlOUYJhuVXbOGKfHLbF7XPdyl9cYCmlfhmIjWBxGIBL9tLsoJKtVE BP731t4Ijg+oeNUv4dt96ThzS6vi4Km8bDClRTsx27PrvocxtQcqBtl1blDW4qti52yg 4zkmq7Lxi1diQGZPSk3ctRSJTuudwOTZPZrCII/Mw3t3MkVoLuGGB1LN5k89LoPQFFIY mkwHd9+UdrpURwAz6YiIieIta41br8DTugVm5z4xfokV0Gyy01LzkbfnLeD8NQ7lmGgf fG0w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BJujjr2sb1cX9c+OQyafdtx0LIp2tMcjhE5Y8oyP6SbzVb9y0 IusDikH+XlpP1xODche4YROP8UR7X7kYAWl5Vk7TJ4gWXybIGg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAy6cDWK3is/4kGmTUpcx3s9yNJOwFABW6RcfQOznkvgKkdNpwRSHSePfsjQvbcYKT40NO5pL1SlUpgm7xNas= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b8c2:: with SMTP id s2mr5518673ljp.179.1597236678253; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:51:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Yannis Milios Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 13:51:06 +0100 Message-ID: To: Proxmox VE user list X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.000 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 DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message 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 SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] LVM over ISCSI issue X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:51:27 -0000 On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 12:12, Amin Vakil via pve-user < pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> wrote: > Do you have any reason leading you to believe enabling discard is the > problem? > I was mainly driven by search results on the internet based on "0x9:(WRITE_ZEROES) flags 0x0 phys_seg 0" as keywords. >> kernel: sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] tag#74 Add. Sense: Logical unit communication failure This also suggests that the (iscsi?) communication between the initiator and the target was lost for some reason. Can you check on iscsi target (NAS) logs for any clues at the same time? If possible, you could try separating iscsi network from nfs network or even rolling back to a previous pve kernel to see if that will help. Y.