@andSmv thanks for coming back on this. Actually you are right it is a limit on Windows OS as per documentation here https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started/editions-comparison-windows-server-2019?tabs=full-comparison. Should have checked this before I asked the question 😄

@vahric-0 No, I believe that either should work well with 2019

@olivierlambert

A little feedback regarding my problem that some may have in the future in the case of purchasing an external box which will be connected to an XCP-NG host.

It turns out that the Sabrent brand box that I bought will not work with XCP-NG, there would be quite a few basic problems. To see if with a more recent kernel in the next XCP version this resolves the problem or not.

I tried the bypass with a uas blacklist without success the box remains blacklisted :

touch /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist-usb.conf echo "blacklist uas" > /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist-usb.conf reboot

But none with an old box (5 storage spaces in USB3) which is not black listed.

Subject on the site Kernel.org (Kernel 4.18.12) :
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201421
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+icZUXHnc-Qd9NhwxFx3+LQakNTWmS_RRYsTAY8-gO8wc219Q@mail.gmail.com/

Amazon (user feedback with similar problems) :
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1PSQWXUTUMLAD

I will therefore keep this enclosure for another use with a machine having a more recent kernel (6.1) where this will not be an issue.
I will test it with a version of CentOS 7 with a kernel version close to the current one to see if I encounter the same issues.

@AlexanderK Yes. The hosts and CS Management server are on the same L2/no firewalls. I think it has to do with me wanting to use an "L2 network topology" out the gate but from the reading I'm doing, this is definitely atypical. I've blown away the zone and reconstructed it in what I think is a "normal" CS config now.

I've gotten the hosts attached at least, but now I'm seeing issues with getting the SystemVMs up and running. I did check the 'use local host storage' option in the zone config and I can see CS is at least touching/renamed the local SR.

Secondary Storage Vm creation failure in zone [xxxxxx]. Error details: Unable to allocate capacity on zone [2] due to [null]. Console proxy creation failure. Zone [xxxxxx]. Error details: Unable to orchestrate start VM instance {"id":20,"instanceName":"v-20-VM","type":"ConsoleProxy","uuid":"f138df9e-92c4-4cfd-9333-7d8396c436e6"} due to [Unable to acquire lock on VMTemplateStoragePool: 31].

My storage network is completely private and everything is hanging off a single bond0 where I have VLANs carved down to the XCP-ng host, but I haven't configured any networks within XO. I assume CS was supposed to take care of that?

I'm also not seeing the VMs show up in XO. Am I supposed to see instances and SystemVMs in XO?

Thanks for any help.

Largely depends on your homelab. I'm currently in my homelab using a 3970X Threadripper 😉 But, I got that board/chip free after we did a client upgrade to the new Threadrippers, and there isn't a single amount of money I could save on energy to match that savings.

That said, think about what you need to use your homelab configuration for; I often find that the availability of RAM and total available cores. But I guess different needs matter too..

ls -la | grep "grid_t4" -r--r--r-- 1 root root 530 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-16a.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 556 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-16q.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 529 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-1a.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 529 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-1b4.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 529 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-1b.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 555 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-1q.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 528 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-2a.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 528 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-2b4.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 528 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-2b.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 554 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-2q.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 529 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-4a.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 555 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-4q.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 530 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-8a.conf -r--r--r-- 1 root root 556 Mar 7 08:09 grid_t4-8q.conf

It's a bit hard to tell with so little details 😕

Could you provide more context, the network bandwidth between XO, XCP-ng, your PC where you import the drives etc.

@Danp

yes your correct .. however my source issues started again..

there is some issue using kubernetes, longhorn with mariadb operator in xcpng

having a hard time tracking down the root cause

That's interesting though 🙂

@alpenliebeanj

I know you resolved this a different way but what I did when migrating P2V from a bare metal debian system to xcpng is using clonezilla I transferred the image via the network to the VM which was booted to clonezilla as well. Then I changed the boot option to UEFI in advanced, pressed escape on startup and then proceeded to add a boot menu entry for grub of the Debian system. I would assume the process would have been similar in your case as well to resolve.

Okay then try CPU cap at 400 🙂

@Danp
I do not have a power outage or did you recently install XCP updates.
I shutdown the host at the console.
Next day,I power on the host,and that was it.

@kait said in how to disable vm console or make it secondary display device:

@DustinB im using passthrough not vgpu but i could try that anyways

I assumed you were attempting to use passthrough.

Finally, I follow an existing topic and configure nut-server on the hypervisor to access the ups via usb.
I know that Olivier is not fully aligned with the fact that the host is modified but IMO it is an acceptable change on my XCP-NG host.

@enes-selcuk The error is telling you that you're host doesn't have enough Memory to actually start the VM.

Is this VM from an OVA and being imported (or has been imported?)

If you have XO or XOLite installed, you can try to reduce the amount of Memory assigned to the VM and start it then.

In case someone ends up here with a similar issue, you also end up at the UEFI shell when UEFI is selected for a BIOS-based image.

Try with Advanced -> Boot firmware changed to bios.

As long as you configure things right like @DustinB said you should be good to go, I don't believe anything will override that and sync to the host.

@high-voltages you also can try xenpm start 10 to gather info for 10s and it will print a sumarry at the end, in my case it had each core average frequency, not sure you'll get it too, but you can give it a shot.

@XCP-ng-JustGreat
We ended up doing the Registry bypass. After that was done it worked great!

We also tried things on our ESXi cluster, but due to licensing, couldn't do the vTPM. Also made sure to mention to my IT Manager about Olivier's 20-minute response to my forum post. 🙂 Very much appreciated - hopefully I can get us to switch over.