The CF boot on my ESXi 5.1 server died today. While rebuilding I decided to upgrade to ESXi 5.5. I'll never get those 5 hours of my life back.
Anway, to the point: the iSCSI implementation between ESXi 5.5 and FreeNAS 8.3 is broken. I was using the release build of ESXi 5.5 and FreeNAS 8.3-RELEASE-p10.
The iSCSI targets were previously working just fine with ESXi 5.1. There were no changes on the FreeNAS side but the iSCSI targets would not be seen by ESXi 5.5, whether doing dynamic (discovery) or static defined targets. The targets were seen by discovery, but were never attached. I never saw anything suspect in the logs of either system.
I also played with security settings. I was using CHAP, but I also tried no authentication and also Mutual CHAP, all without any success.
Finally, not wanting to upgrade FreeNAS yet, I downgraded ESXi back to 5.1 and it works as it should.
I searched the FreeNAS support tickets and I did not see anything related to this issue. I will submit this as a bug but I wanted to give some time for feedback from anyone else here that may (or may not) have this same problem.
Thanks!
Anway, to the point: the iSCSI implementation between ESXi 5.5 and FreeNAS 8.3 is broken. I was using the release build of ESXi 5.5 and FreeNAS 8.3-RELEASE-p10.
The iSCSI targets were previously working just fine with ESXi 5.1. There were no changes on the FreeNAS side but the iSCSI targets would not be seen by ESXi 5.5, whether doing dynamic (discovery) or static defined targets. The targets were seen by discovery, but were never attached. I never saw anything suspect in the logs of either system.
I also played with security settings. I was using CHAP, but I also tried no authentication and also Mutual CHAP, all without any success.
Finally, not wanting to upgrade FreeNAS yet, I downgraded ESXi back to 5.1 and it works as it should.
I searched the FreeNAS support tickets and I did not see anything related to this issue. I will submit this as a bug but I wanted to give some time for feedback from anyone else here that may (or may not) have this same problem.
Thanks!