Categories

  • All news regarding Xen and XCP-ng ecosystem

    137 Topics
    4k Posts
    G
    @gduperrey Nothing really to add, my 3 host Intel production pool updated just fine. The load balancer is always a little weird, but I'm sure it is calculated based on CPU and RAM assigned to each VM, where I split things up based on workload. It's a small system, and the real workload is handled by 3 Windows VMs so I tend to split them up onto one of the three hosts. I may get to my lab in the next couple of days, but it isn't doing work so testing is kind of pointless right now. The only thing "doing work" is a VM with XO from sources.
  • Everything related to the virtualization platform

    1k Topics
    13k Posts
    olivierlambertO
    @edisoninfo Great! This warning is a life saver and did perfectly its job, allowing you to discover a hidden issue Glad you found the root cause!
  • 3k Topics
    25k Posts
    P
    @florent said in Continuous Replication jobs creates full backups every time since 2025-09-06 (xo from source): @Andrew @peo are you using purge snapshot data ? In both case, can you try disabling it and disabling CBT on the relevant VMs ? Yes, I was using CBT + purge snapshots, but that might not have been the reason for the sluggish transfer speeds with the later versions of XO. I discovered that the SSD on my destination host were going bad, a write of a /dev/null-filled test file (1GB then 5GB) on the device started at expected 450MB/s, but slowed down to less than 10MB/s. Found a bunch of unexpected errors (because the disk was more or less new) in the logs by dmesg. Doing the replication to another host made it fast even when transferred in full. CBT+delete = still "Backup fell back to a full" (this was the third since my XO update) CBT w/o delete = first backup=full transfer (4 min) and garbage collection (a few more minutes), second=delta transfer (a few seconds backup time)
  • Our hyperconverged storage solution

    34 Topics
    674 Posts
    henri9813H
    Hello, @DustinB The https://vates.tech/xostor/ says: The maximum size of any single Virtual Disk Image (VDI) will always be limited by the smallest disk in your cluster. But in this case, maybe it can be stored in the "2TB disks" ? Maybe others can answer, i didn't test it.
  • 30 Topics
    85 Posts
    GlitchG
    @Davidj-0 Merci pour le retour, j'utilisais aussi une Debian pour mon test ^^