@Chemikant784 It's likely that both Microsoft and Xen tools are a combination of the fix, I doubt XCP-ng has anything to do with this issue. And I never had time to check the XCP-ng Guest tools for Windows to see if this happened, but I'm guessing no or not tested. All my hosts are now on XCP-ng 8.3 and I don't see any point in testing 8.2 since it is EOL. And that said, I'm no farther along in my Server 2025 testing, too many other things going on to think about it right now. If I have time I need to burn the vSphere portion of my lab down and install either Harvester HCI or Windows Server for Hyper-V. Broadcom is just (seemingly) going out of their way to prevent people like me (or us) from learning their products and using them in our labs to further that goal. I've explained this several times to VMUG Advantage managers, but they seem so tied up in clawing out some continuing relationships with Broadcom that they will not "rock the boat". I've said these things in Broadcom webcasts as well, always a run-around with no answers. Sorry for the rant. All that said, eagerly awaiting XCP-ng 9, unfortunately I think the Alpha or Beta may wait until XO 6 is finished (just a guess). The updated kernel brings with it some storage changes that I really want to test, NFS nconnect=XX being one of them to see if I can get a little better performance to/from the disks. ESXi default was nconnect=4 and the VMs were slightly faster to/from their disks (all thin provisioned). The 4k "block" size and smaller is what I want to improve in all this.

Try to disconnect/shutdown XO, and see if your Windows VM still restart every 10-15min.

@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!

You are welcome Enjoy XCP-ng/XO!

@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

@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.

@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

Yeah I remember it wasn't that easy