@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,

Hi, Yes, by default, adding a new host to a pool, it will be lowered on CPU features to the common denominator, in other word, cutting that's not common between all pool members. So: If you add a more recent CPU to an existing pool, the CPU won't use new CPU features If you add an older host to a pool, it will lower down all features from existing CPUs

@Niall-Con Thank you! I'll take a look to that and will ping you to test on real hardware. Just need to find time (in the middle of storm right now), so it'll take one or two weeks most probably.

@Kcreed Hi ! I need to re-upload the file, and I will send you the link in DM

Yeah I remember it wasn't that easy

@kagbasi-ngc said in VM Console Screen Suddenly Inaccessible: Hmm, interesting observation about potentially this being a failed migration issue. I can confirm that none of my users in the lab are migrating any VMs or this particular one, for that matter. However, I do have the Load Balancer plugin running and it could be the source of a migration that could've failed. How can I confirm this in the logs? I mean, what should I be looking for? While trying to find logs, you can try to find the VM in question and see if it is using local storage rather than shared.

@olivierlambert This is great, thanks for letting us know! I'll give this a shot in my lab as soon as I can.

Don't worry, glad you asked to avoid having bigger problems later edit: there's a Python SDK for XAPI if you need.

@flakpyro From my experience, VM with UEFI boots faster than BIOS. For some OS versions UEFI runs faster IF there are no Xen drivers. But for most installs it does not matter much, except for Debian... which has given me problems with pool/migration/reboot with the UEFI installs on XCP (there's a workaround). So, I would vote for UEFI as the default for all OS/VMs that support it correctly since most are moving to that anyway (including XCP hosts).

@DustinB Go to the VM Advance Tab and change the two settings [image: 1748393969926-6e4b44f0-54cc-401d-8c12-42b067ca9750-image.png] [image: 1748393980963-42474d00-96fe-430d-8f5f-49dfb5cb38fb-image.png]

@amosgiture xcp-ng 8.2 and 8.2.1 is working without any issue. Have you checked the logs? it is recognized as xenserver 8.2.1 [image: 1747995496573-91f8952f-3e5e-4ed2-9990-2dc7ffc8a8a9-image.png]

Adding @stormi

@dinhngtu Thanks for your help. I solved to install XS Tools uninstalling old XS version 9.0, running XenClean and installing version 9.4. Also Disk stats now are correct. Now I get these good performances: [image: 1747727185969-a6beabc3-793e-41d7-9f03-4689db372275-immagine.png] [image: 1747727202526-20d58e2a-e9f9-4d7b-ba44-844dca2008fa-immagine.png]

@AshleyDe In the last few days, I've had these same issues with a few Server2025 virtual machines (I assume are close ish to Win11 24h2).

Great news Closing this as fixed. Thanks everyone for your feedback!

@plaidypus You can configure the disk within the guest OS to match whatever formatting you want. I would suspect the performance gains would be included as well, but you'd have to test and verify.