@olivierlambert Thank you so much. Got it.

@Danp Ya, I normally restart the master first, but it was late and I was just trying to get them patched and restarted. I restarted 03 and everything came back up. Thanks!

If you want to put VHD file in an existing NFS SR, you need to indeed have an UUID type. Note that the SR file structure should NOT have any subfolder into it. To generate an UUID, you can use uuidgen command.

@CJ Please test the branch email-local-hostname which make the local hostname configurable and keep me posted.

Sounds like a rights issue.

Don't forget to always stay up to date to the latest commit as possible, because there's no support on older code for the version on Github

@Gheppy thank you for the response. I will do that.

@MrNaz I recommend reading the XO blog; updates are published monthly. NBD was introduced in the 5.76 release and the ability to enable in the Xen Orchestra UI was introduced in 5.79 https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xen-orchestra-5-76/ https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xen-orchestra-5-79/ Also enhancements were released in 5.81 https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xen-orchestra-5-81/

Old thread i know but i will say that there is an issue with using VLAN.id 1 I am permitting all vlans end to end on my infrastructure and the only vlan that doesnt work is 1. If i move the VM to another vlan then everything works. I suppose the solution is to not use vlan.id 1 but thats terrible. all vlans are permissiable.

Ah great news Thanks for the feedback!

@elvintmp75 @elvintmp75 said in XO Proxy Comminuty edition Config Error: I'm probably missing something obvious..any ideas? Yes ! You forgot to read the instructions properly. It is clearly stated: "This script is not supported or endorsed by Xen Orchestra. Any issue you may have, please report it first to this repository." This means that this script/ install method is NOT made or supported by Vates (The guys behind Xen Orchestra / XCP-ng ) There may be errors in scripts and installs which you should report to the creator and not to this forum !

@olivierlambert Thank you and your team again for your commitment to this fantastic FOSS tool and for allowing me to build it myself! I very much appreciate the personal touch of my issues being triaged by the CEO and Co-Founder. It's refreshing to see an executive officer stay in touch with their customer base.

Hi, Indeed, only root user in the guest can read it Any user that can see the XAPI object will be able to read it So I would say it's "reasonably safe", but it all depends on your global usage context and level of confidentiality you need.

Hi! Short answer: no. Restore is only for a "superuser" (admin) not for "regular" users. In the long run: maybe So it's up to you (for now) to restore the VM.

@AlexTheBest great work and effort alex , and welcome to modern storage .

Hey, @stevewest15 - I'm going to echo Olivier here. I stumbled across this posting (sorry for being a couple of months out) because I was looking for the right procedure to change my MTU to 9k - based on a recommendation from iX Systems (we have a TrueNAS Core X10 from iX). My two XCP-NG boxes have 10G NICs and the X10 has a dual 10G NIC LACP bond. I was seeing, frankly, disappointing numbers when I watched port statistics on the 10G switch; I never really got above ~2G even on the LACP bond while doing a backup from the pool to the pool's backup SR. After reading Olivier's response to you, I thought I'd iperf it without changing the MTU. Olivier and his team are a bunch of REALLY smart people, and I'm inclined to believe what they tell you... But I'm a strong believer in "trust but verify". Ce n'est pas, @olivierlambert? Anyway, this is what I got just with straight 1500 MTU using iperf3 between one of my XCP-NG hosts and the X10. As you can see, I didn't do any modifications such as paralleling or MSS settings. Just a raw test: [image: 1691080423925-c67a394b-c7b8-4345-b1de-93df8f010aa6-image.png] The 10.11.11.0/24 network is our non-routed SAN/NAS network. While pushing to 9k MTU (don't forget to look at MSS as well) might help these ~80% utilization numbers, the real issue in my mind is the gap between the ~2G I was seeing and the raw numbers above. This tells me that there's something else afoot here. A few thoughts: TrueNAS encryption. If the target is encrypting/decrypting data on write/read, you're going to see significantly lower numbers My initially disappointed observations were during backups. Again, there's a lot going on under the hood that could be affecting performance before it even gets to the wire (or glass, as in my case). Perhaps I need to look at what I can do to tune NFS itself Changing the MTU (and probably MSS) is absolutely a valid thing to do, but every device in the path needs to be adjusted as well. And 5 years from now, when you go to replace the switch, or a NIC, or the storage array... Are you going to remember? I've been in that situation... and I didn't. Hopefully you're smarter than me! iPerf is showing that there's probably 20% in overhead on my SAN, which is something worth looking at, but at this point it's not an outrageous number - particularly since I'm not even coming close to touching that number during normal ops. It's worth a Wireshark though.

@olivierlambert so I went to restore this VM from backup, and noticed that the monthly backup is currently running on this VM as we speak. Will restoring from this newest backup fix my issue? Or does it restore the issue back into production?

works. thanks!