@tsukraw No worries! Just glad that we can all help each other out!

@flakpyro that's a good news ( but at least another user saw this) we are currently testing the branch ensuring that at least the fix don't create other issues

@pilow @majorp93 Hi, we've detected a memory leak at the REST API level. We pushed a fix on the branch: mra-fix-rest-memory-leak Can you test the branch?

Hi, thanks for the heads-up, we will see about doing some comparison with the backups refactoring on our dev environment to check if we lost some speed and try to fix it if so. Very happy to hear that the issue is mostly resolved. We will patch this ASAP.

@TechGrips Sorry, there is no quick test to be sure the VM is not corrupted. The usual way would be to make a healthcheck. We cannot be sure everything is ok as it concerns multiple tar linked to each other. If it keeps warning you on the same backups, it may be due to a faulty parent. You would need for this to create a new chain of snapshot

@McHenry 19 VMs is 19 Chains of 16 VDIs at each hourly run, a new snapshot is created (some minutes) and the oldest one is merged/garbage collected in the first snap (time undetermined) I guess 19 merge + chain garbage collected seems to not be able to be done in the one hour timeframe before next CR is done you possibly have a chain growing can you check in DASHBOARD/HEALTH the unhealthy VDI section at 11 am ?

new mail received from Laurent Nguyen today Bonjour, Face à la hausse des tarifs VMware, nous vous invitons à remplir un questionnaire pour mieux comprendre vos attentes et améliorer nos services. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/288HCLL Merci d’avance pour votre temps. Et si n’est pas encore fait, n’oubliez pas de vous inscrire au Veeam Technical Cloud Club qui aura lieu le Jeudi 16 Avril 2026 : https://go.veeam.com/webinar-technical-cloud-club-france Go give some love to XCP-NG + VEEAM collaboration in the survey !

main.xxx (azazel.xxx) Snapshot Start: 2026-04-10 00:03 End: 2026-04-10 00:03 Local storage (137.41 GiB free - thin) - legion.xxx transfer Start: 2026-04-10 00:03 End: 2026-04-10 00:09 Duration: 6 minutes Size: 17.08 GiB Speed: 47.42 MiB/s Start: 2026-04-10 00:03 End: 2026-04-10 00:09 Duration: 6 minutes Start: 2026-04-10 00:03 End: 2026-04-10 00:09 Duration: 6 minutes Type: full

@Bastien-Nollet I'm running c1e5f btw

If you're looking for a quick way to verify those files without running a full restoration test every single time, you can usually run a checksum comparison (MD5 or SHA256) against the original data. For a more 'point and click' approach to double-check specific files or verify hashes quickly, I've used https://thetoolapp.com/utilities/file-integrity-checker/ before. It’s pretty handy for a quick integrity check if you aren't in the mood to mess around with the command line for every single backup set.

Hi @Pilow, Thanks for the report. We are aware that there are many problems with the FLR. We would like to fix them but they are not easy to fix, and we can't give an estimation date for a fix. I've linked this topic to our investigation ticket. For the moment, when FLR fails, we recommend to manually restore your files by following this documentation: https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/blob/master/%40vates/fuse-vhd/README.md#restore-a-file-from-a-vhd-using-fuse-vhd-cli

@florent I can confirm that this fixes the issue!

@Pilow The backups kept by LTR are just regular backups with a specific tag, which doesn't change how we treat them. If you want to avoid each of your LTR backup to depend on one another, we recommend to set a full backup interval value to your backup job, which will regularly force a full backup. (even without LTR, having an infinite chain of backups can cause problem in the long term, especially if no healthchecks are made)

@MathieuRA said: Hi, regarding your backups which do not appear on the XO5 restore page, I suggest you to open a new topic Forgot to include the link to the new topic https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/12040/restore-only-showing-1-vm

@Pilow said: @ph7 try to put RETENTION to 1 in the schedule, as you are using LTR parameters I was running the shedule with 20 mins backup retention and it is running fine together with the LTR And here is the manual I ran at 14:56 removed [image: 1775140196713-screenshot-2026-04-02-at-16-28-13-backup.png]

@Pilow perfect!

@joeymorin said: I observed similar behaviour. Two pools. Pool A composed of two hosts. Pool B is single-host. B runs a VM with XO from source. Two VMs on host A1 (on local SR), one VM on host B1 A2 (on local SR). Host A2 has a second local SR (separate physical disc) used as the target for a CR job. CR job would back up all four VMs to the second local SR on host A2. The behaviour observed was that, although the VM on B would be backed up (as expected) as a single VM with multiple snapshots (up to the 'replication retention'), the three other VMs on the same pool as the target SR would see a new full VM created for each run of the CR job. That rather quickly filled up the target SR. I noticed the situation was corrected by a commit on or about the same date reported by @ph7. Incidentally, whatever broke this, and subsequently corrected it, appears to have corrected another issue I reported here. I never got a satisfactory answer regarding that question. Questions were raised about the stability of my test environment, even though I could easily reproduce it with a completely fresh install. Thanks for the work! edit: Correction B1 A2 sometimes it's hard to find a n complete explanation without connecting to the hosts and xo, and going through a lot of logs , which is out of the scope of community support I am glad the continuous improvement of the code base fixed the issue . We will release today a new patch, because migrating from 6.2.2 to 6.3 for a full replication ( source user that updated to the intermediate version are not affected )