@olivierlambert I did open a ticket but thought I would post here as well to see if anyone had insights. Thanks.

Have you read the doc first? https://docs.xcp-ng.org/xostor/ This gives a nice overview on how it works

All the details are here: https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2025/03/14/the-future-of-xcp-ng-lts/ There's no more than this at the moment

@ronan-a [...] 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21668 ttl=64 time=0.805 ms 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21669 ttl=64 time=0.737 ms 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21670 ttl=64 time=0.750 ms 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21671 ttl=64 time=0.780 ms 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21672 ttl=64 time=0.774 ms 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21673 ttl=64 time=0.737 ms 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21674 ttl=64 time=0.773 ms 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21675 ttl=64 time=0.835 ms 64 bytes from 172.27.18.161: icmp_seq=21676 ttl=64 time=0.755 ms 1004711/1004716 packets, 0% loss, min/avg/ewma/max = 0.712/1.033/0.775/195.781 ms I am attaching simple ping stats for last 11 days. I don't think we can blame the network

Hi, XOSTOR on XCP-ng 8.2.1 has been supported since it was released approx 9 months ago. XOSTOR on XCP-ng 8.3 is still in the beta phase, so not officially supported. Regards, Dan

Yes. Meaning we are sure it was correctly installed on supported hosts. This limits the possible outcomes if there's a problem (a bit like XOA vs XO sources, but we have like 10 years of feedback from XO sources, so we can do community support in here with a relative confidence)

@OhSoNoob I've used XOSTOR on top of MDRAID and it seemed to work well for me during my testing. I ran tests of it on top of MD RAID 1, 5, and 10 (MDRAID's "RAID 10" which isn't really RAID 10) and had good luck with it. The XOSTOR is really adding a second layer of redundancy at that point, similar to MDRAID 5+1 builds so is almost overkill. Almost. Where I see the most benefit from XOSTOR on MDRAID would be on top of RAID 10 or RAID 0 arrays. Depending on the speed of your drives, you might get some benefit from the increased read speed (and read/write speed for RAID 0). In addition, RAID 10 would give you some additional redundancy so that losing a drive wouldn't mean the loss of that node for XOSTOR's purposes, possibly making recovery easier. The ability for some redundancy might also be useful for a stretched cluster or some other situation where your network links between XOSTOR nodes isn't as fast as it should be; The ability to recover at the RAID level might be much faster than recovering or rebuilding an entire node over a slow link. @ronan-a, I'm not sure if you remember, but the very first test of XOSTOR I ran, shortly after it was introduced,, were on top of RAID 10 arrays. I kept that test cluster alive and running until equipment failure (failed motherboards, nothing related to XOSTOR or MDRAID) forced me to scrap it. I had similar teething pains to others while XOSTOR was being developed and debugged during the test phase, but nothing related to running on top of MDRAID as far as I could tell.

Not only but that's where it's more visible.

Hi, Because you can enter a scenario where some XOSTOR packages might require a restart without the rest. We have planned to detect that and make the RPU algorithm a bit different in the order of operations

@ronan-a Unfortunately, I am in the process of reinstalling XCP-ng on the nodes to start from scratch. Just thought I have tried too many things and somewhere forgot to undo the ‘wrong’ configs. So can’t run the command now. Although I had run this command before when I posted all the screenshots. The output had 2 entries (from my memory): 1. StltCon <mgmt_ip> 3366 Plain 2. <storage_nw_ip> 3366 Plain I will repost with the required data when I get everything configured again. Thanks.

@fatek XOSTOR isn't currently compatible with the 8.3 beta, so you need to use XCP 8.2.1 if you want to use XOSTOR now.

I had a similar error. I gave up & have decided to wait for the official 8.3 xcp-ng release that should/will support XOSTOR 1.0 https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/77160

@BHellman said in Let's Test the HA: Disclaimer: I work for LINBIT, makers of DRBD and LINSTOR the tech behind XOSTOR. We can do highly available iscsi targets, we even have guides on our website that take you step by step to do it. These would be outside of XCP-NG, but would serve the same purpose. If there is any interest from Vates to integrate DRBD/HA into XCP-NG, we're always open to discussions. Sounds interesting for pretty much everyone comming from VMware vSAN running SQL Server in a failover-cluster if im allowed to jump the gun

So, yes, I had to create the interface again. Live migration on a 100gig network is looking pretty sweet!

Ticket has been updated. Thanks to Support. XOSTOR cluster has been successfully created.

@olivierlambert Nice!