Thanks @dinhngtu and @stormi

You are welcome Enjoy XCP-ng/XO!

so it seems like when i make the igpu pass through, i see the starting lines of xcp-ng but it never gets to the console screen. which is what i expect. When I add the pcie devices (igpu/hdmi audio) to a vm and start it up, I get and update to the screen and it shows a red number counting which is part of the console. So it seems that when the VM re-initializes the igpu, dom/xcp retakes it over. I confirmed that by using the keyboard to move around and it reshowing the console and filling the missing details as i move around. So why is the dom/xcp retaking the video device over again when it should be blocked from accessing it? [image: 1756568880819-img_3348.jpeg]

@chicagomed said in Passthrough Contention Problems with Console and Linux VM: @TeddyAstie great will take a look this weekend. Is there anything in particular you want us to test / check out? What works/doesn't work and overall performance.

Hi, Small side note: lately I’ve noticed that some posts look like they were generated by LLMs. This can actually make it harder for the community to help, because the text is often long, unclear, or missing the basic details we really need to assist. I’d really encourage everyone to write posts in their own words and share as much relevant information as possible. The real value of this community is people helping each other directly

@roaringsilence Glad you got it all sorted out.

@olivierlambert I 100% agree its vague. I even told the person that. Like I was saying I was more looking for anyone who has ran a cluster in those other scheduler settings to get some feedback on it. I guess being a little more specific, would socket or Core be better for VMs that are NUMA sensitive? Such as database servers or the like?

@kubuntu-newbie I've looked at the code. The intel passthrough seems to not care about the value of the vga key in platform, and instead it expects the key igd_passthrough to be set to true. https://github.com/xapi-project/xen-api/blob/9eb5f9f9f3c742c0c0b691098e1dafc02e40c856/ocaml/xapi/xapi_xenops.ml#L390

Can confirm that OME 4.5 works, installation plugins and tools works.

@JL457 a coworker was telling me about Intune, if you run Config Manager, there are some settings to let them work together. Not sure exactly what needed to be done, but apparently ours is fixed and ready for someone to learn what's what. Our contract allows some stupidly larger number of clients to be using Intune.

@KPS Glad to hear

@markr All, I am currently running Windows 11 24H2 on an Intel Haswell i7-4700HQ laptop and it runs fine. What's more, it was in-place upgraded from Windows 11 23H2 using the (still working) setup.exe /product server switch compatibility bypass. (Simpler than all the LabConfig registry tweaks.) The only change I know of that simply won't run due to 24H2 is that it requires a processor capability that has been available since first generation Intel Core processors. It should run on your hardware in a VM. Seems like something else is going on.

@olivierlambert said in Can't boot a VM with 1TB memory / 128 CPUs: We are testing some machines with 6TiB RAM My god

Thanks for your feedback, @TeddyAstie and @gecant . From your answers and the discussion in Non-server CPU compatibility - Ryzen and Intel I conclude, that the benefits of the 8 V-cache cores vs. the 8 turbo cores are just irrelevant. For XEN they are transparent and not really different in terms of performance. Hence, in a typical server environment we just let XEN randomly choose the cores and don't think about different "performance cores" that COULD be faster in specific applications like games.

Hey @olivierlambert and @andyhhp , thanks for your quick reply. That means it's not a problem at all. But we can't use all of the CPU's performance features either. However, these would only be used for specific computing operations (e.g., games) and would have little to no relevance for standard server applications, right?

@fanuelsen I was having a similar problem just now with XCP-NG 8.3 LTS and the latest XO. I was unable to migrate an MCS-created VM using XO (I was doing a Host Migrate within the pool only; no storage migration). Oddly, I was able to do the Host Migration using XCP-NG Center. This was in a production Pool that I had recently set up, and this time I had been given a dedicated 10Gbps team with VLANs for migration and host management, and two separate 10Gbps teams for storage and for VMs, respectively. To get live migration of my MCS-created VMs to work, I had to delete the Default Migration Network on the Pool's Advanced tab. I don't see a downside to doing this as all my NICs are 10Gbps, so all NICs should operate at roughly the same speed. ETA: With the Default Migration Network deleted, I have confirmed that migration traffic defaults to going over the management NICs where it is desired rather than going over the storage or VM NICs.

That's the reason, then. The update will update files on the disk, not on what's running in memory, so after updates you must reboot to actually use those updates

@gduperrey Thank you for the reply. The use case is to centralize all of our reporting and monitoring for all of our devices. We have a number of XCP host, various servers, etc, that we are responsible for, and all of them besides our XCP nodes are being monitored for real-time analytics by Netdata. We are also using Zabbix for trending and long term usage but would like to be able to move the XCP nodes into our Netdata cloud versus being just on XOA/XCP. I also understand this would be overidden by updates and that you guys cant support it. I mainly wanted to see if it would "break" anything you already have in place. As a feature request, maybe have a way that you can report to a Netdata cloud instance. That would be nice.

Hello, @nikade Yeah i think like this already, but i'm surprised by the result of the calcul. I should i have either: 3 nodes which can die, or "1", but i should not have the same number right ? in my case, i run the command in a 3 hosts cluster and it return me 3 as value. which disturb me. Best regards,