Hi, That's normal as your trial ends. I can extend it if you need

@florent Thanks. OK, so for one time remote migration I will be fine with multiple rsync runs plus switching the central remote for my backups. Nice to have both options though.

@Danp There were no entries regarding backup listed by the journalctl command for the target backup time. I've updated my XO to commit 16498, and restarted the XO VM. The backup ran ok Today. Thank you @DustinB and @Danp for responding to my post! Alex

@Delgado said in Health Checks Failing: @florent can confirm that health checks are working again! Thanks for the prompt reply! thanks for the precise bug report, that is half of the job done

@florent I updated to build 16498 and followed your suggestion. Now it is showing that the connection is running and successful. I have a 2-day object lock enabled. In BackBlaze B2 Buckets once object lock is enabled you cannot disable it. You can change the days to lock to 0 but that will only affect new files. Existing files will be locked based on the Object lock settings applied when the file was saved. It appears that this is resolved. I will try to run a few backups to my BackBlaze buckets to see if it runs.

Ghost XO user authentication task has nothing to do with backup restore, it is a known bug that will likely be fixed in the next release.

Roughly, a snapshot is created and transferred while all new blocks written are mirrored to the destination. When the entire snapshot is created on destination, the VM is frozen few ms to finish consolidating the mirrored blocks into the destination snapshot. And then the memory is transferred.

@olivierlambert I think that was probably related to my question if he tried to connect the same NFS share on the Synology as storage and backup target

@florent Thank you for the update.

Snapshot will stay until the next backup. It's the "point of reference". But it shouldn't stay attached ot the Dom0 after it's done.

Yes, that would be better to open a ticket at that point

@lawrencesystems Thank you for the reply! I considered BHC in the past, wasn't sure to how big to make the SR for the restores BTW Love your XCP YT content, helped me understand so many features and best practices

Thank you for the update Andy.

You are welcome

There's no way we can do incremental since the VDI is changed/rebuilt during a migration (it's a new VDI created). As soon as you move a VDI, a new full is done automatically because the VHD is entirely new. Doing incremental on top of it would corrupt it.

Ping @florent

Yes, when you delete a snap, it must be coalesced. So everything is normal here. Switching the thread a solved, thanks for your feedback!

@rtjdamen said in Vinchin: i run into some issues related to specific vms, most likely caused by storage issues from the host or by the backup itself. We will give that some time to experience, in the meantime i want to understand the alternatives as well. No problem From a high level view, it appears that there is at least some integration of the product to support XCP-ng, likely either through an agent or API call. It's not a single pane of glass to view at the environment though, which might be irritating. As for the product itself I can't say as I've never used it.

@olivierlambert Haven't checked the CPU as CPU is never a problem on my load But yes this speed is a lot better so I can backup more frequently (every 2hrs for the important VM's) Actually the speed on my homelab is faster than the ones we get at the enterprise with "real" hardware.