@cmanos No problem, glad I could helped. As Olivier also pointed above, it's not an issue anymore when using QCOW2 which is currently in beta, so hopefully it's only a short workaround

@edsilber After exploring the UI, I confirmed that it's not possible to schedule a one-time cron job from the XO-5 interface. We're prioritizing the development of new features for XO-6, so we'll take your suggestions regarding scheduling into account for the new interface. I propose an alternative: using the REST API to run schedules by creating your own execution script (if you are on linux: https://www.veeble.com/kb/scheduling-one-time-jobs-in-linux-using-at-command/). The REST API link is: {your-xo-url}/rest/v0/docs/#/schedules Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.

@dinhngtu Hi For my i made on offline Install to solve my issue, installed failed when downloading the kernel from servers, so offline install worked fine for me.

@olivierlambert Thought so just wanted to check. Thank you.

See https://docs.xen-orchestra.com/load_balancing

The problem with those providers is, that the additional IP is usually L3 routed to the physical hosts IP. A better solution would be to get a /29 subnet or similar, where the gateway is handled by the provider and then configure that subnet on a specific VLAN which is available on all hosts where you want the VM's to be able to run. More work for the provider, since they have to setup the gateway IP within the /29 subnet on their router and then configure the VLAN on the switchports towards your hosts, but its the best way to make the VM's agile.

Ping @mathieuRA about this

@Andrew Hey budd, thanks for the pointer. That ISO worked, thanks.

@lsouai-vates Thanks for the response. I was just looking for a way to create a full screen display for a NOC, without requiring interactive login. Sounds like that's not possible at the moment?

i found that whole pool is not alive enough. Can't reboot or mirgate anything. Have issue only with this 1 pool. Is it safe to reboot hosts? https://paste.vates.tech/?7e565d3abe23fd11#7JcQbjRguFpNfw281asxdmb2Zrd7GKXpuE17iDtwt3KG

@Danp Yup, that fixed the time and the logs also. Thanks! [12:42 19] xoa@xoa:~$ timedatectl Local time: Sun 2025-10-19 12:42:55 EDT Universal time: Sun 2025-10-19 16:42:55 UTC RTC time: Sun 2025-10-19 16:42:55 Time zone: America/New_York (EDT, -0400) System clock synchronized: yes NTP service: active RTC in local TZ: no [12:42 19] xoa@xoa:~$ last reboot reboot system boot 6.1.0-40-amd64 Sun Oct 19 12:42 still running reboot system boot 6.1.0-40-amd64 Sun Oct 19 08:27 - 12:42 (04:15) reboot system boot 6.1.0-40-amd64 Sun Oct 19 08:18 - 08:26 (00:08) reboot system boot 6.1.0-40-amd64 Sat Oct 18 15:16 - 08:17 (17:01)

Don't worry, you did right to ask! Quick explanation: it's exposed in XO because it's a special parameter given to the VM (a kind of a special device) detected by Windows, making it install the driver for it.

Good catch Dan and good decision @McHenry Even if you don't run VM, dom0 is used for VM transfer/backup/replication, so having 4GiB or RAM is a lot better in your case

@Kptainflintt said in Cloning Windows 11 with vTPM: No reply to this topic but just seen same thing. And same "workaround" : disabling vTPM at VM creation from template to avoid crashing. I can confirm that XOA want to add a second vTPM, any fix ? Sharing for temporal context: This appears to still be be happening when creating a VM using my custom Windows 11 template (didn't do any cloudbase stuff, just some really basic stuff like updates, then sysprep). Once I click "Open advanced settings" then toggle "Enable vTPM" into the disabled state, my attempt to create the VM succeeds, and the newly cloned VM has a vTPM with a different UUID. This is literally my first attempt at creating and then cloning a windows 11 template, but it seems to be working.

@McHenry like @olivierlambert said, keep in mind that a VM with 16 CPUs will be less available than a VM with 4 vCPUs, because it's easier to have 4 vCPUs ready to work than 16 simultaneously beware of this graph, it only graph the first 16 vCPU, but you can have more working ! the visual widget is failing you. think of topology too : if you have two sockets, you can have a topology of 2 sockets with 4 cores for a 8 vCPU VM. If you have only one socket, try to keep the topology to "1 socket xx cores" for your VMs, performance wise.

@psafont thats good to know the system will prevent you from uploading the same ISO. Since my latest testing i cant seeem to get XO-CE to show the incorrect file name .img of the iso that was uploaded. But know @plaidypus is not alone in this as I have seen it myself and that is why you will see most of the iso in the picture have a date just a few days prior to this recent testing. I manually deleted the iso that were .img and manually uploaded the ISOs again.

@Pilow said in "ACLs" and "VM creator" options on the VM´s Advanced tab: @panzersrmm I tried to snapshot and revert on a VM with Resource set + ACLs and they did not disappear... ? [image: 1759935440961-b316a971-e2cf-4843-9d05-a96b2299d12a-image.png] @Pilow Yes, yours were kept because you didn't modify them manually. My test case was: Set ACLs + VM creator for a working VM Make a snapshot of this VM Change various VM advanced properties including ACLs + VM creator (simulate evolution of VM) Revert the VM to that snapshot state Check if the set properties were restored: all were restored except ACLs I was wrong about VM creator. That is indeed restored, but ACLs isn't. @olivierlambert Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't trying to judge, just to understand how it actually works.

@andriy.sultanov said in "Block migraton" option on the VM´s Advanced tab: @panzersrmm @panzersrmm said in "Block migraton" option on the VM´s Advanced tab: Hi! Is there a VM parameter that saves this "Block migration" UI button? I wasn't able to identify which one it is with command: xe vm-param-list uuid=<VMuuid> Thank you! How do you mean? Is the XO option not persistent? XO sets these parameters: # xe vm-list uuid=$UUID params=blocked-operations blocked-operations (MRW) : pool_migrate: true; migrate_send: true Which you can set like this yourself: # xe vm-param-set uuid=$UUID blocked-operations:migrate_send=true # xe vm-param-set uuid=$UUID blocked-operations:pool_migrate=true @andriy.sultanov Thank you for your answer! That's what I was looking for. I was looking directly at the VM parameters, with xe vm-param-list uuid=$UUID and I was directly searching for "blocked_migration". Now I know what to look for. @olivierlambert Thank you for pinging the appropriate team for the answer.

Hi, To start, it's good to read: https://docs.vates.tech/security/ Especially https://docs.vates.tech/security/#contact--disclosure Then, I can answer here directly: we are not affected since Redis is only listening locally, therefore it's not exposed outside XO. There's nothing interesting to do with that CVE, because in order to use it, you already must be a privileged user.

@Forza Good point. I need to apply the latest patches anyway, so I'll be rebooting the pool later today anyway.