New version: https://github.com/dicode-nl/xcp-ng-ceph-rbd/releases/tag/v20260903 This one includes native Ceph rbd SXM over SMAPIv3! GitHub updated with the latest commits and changes. As always, use with caution. I did run a lot of test scenario's but please do test yourself and let me know your findings!

This was sent to me yesterday!! See our Engineering Team lead's response: We evaluated XCP-ng 8.3 some time ago, but its dom0 kernel was too old for our driver to work properly. Running SupremeRAID inside a DomU should be feasible and is similar to the approach we previously proposed for VMware. However, with XCP-ng 8.3, we did not find a practical native path to export the SupremeRAID VD back to dom0 and use it as an XCP-ng SR. Using iSCSI for this purpose would add significant protocol and networking overhead, which is not ideal for high-performance NVMe storage. I revisited XCP-ng 9.0 and the current Xen/XAPI development. A more promising approach is to run SupremeRAID in a dedicated AlmaLinux VM with the GPU and NVMe drives passed through, then use Xen's native xen-blkback interface to export the SupremeRAID block device back to dom0. Dom0 would see the exported VD as a normal Xen block device, which could then potentially be used to create a standard XCP-ng LVM SR. This approach is much more attractive than iSCSI or NVMe/TCP because the data path uses Xen's blkif shared-memory interface rather than a network protocol. xen-blkback itself is an established Xen mechanism, and Xen supports using a separate domain as a block backend. However, XCP-ng does not currently provide complete first-class lifecycle management for this configuration, so we still need to validate the exact behavior on XCP-ng 9.0, particularly persistent attachment, storage VM startup ordering, and recovery after a host or storage VM reboot. If they can help confirm that the GPU and NVMe drives can be passed through to the storage VM, SupremeRAID can run normally there, and the resulting VD can be exported through xen-blkback to dom0 and used as an XCP-ng SR, I think this could be a very solid architecture for SupremeRAID on XCP-ng. As for write durability, SupremeRAID always operates in write-through mode. An I/O is acknowledged only after all associated data, including parity, has been committed to the drives. Therefore, acknowledged writes do not depend on data or parity remaining only in volatile GPU or host memory Can you do the initial testing with SupremeRAID PRO within your environment? I will begin the initial testing and builds with 4 nodes: 1 & 2 are HP DL380 Gen10 - 2x Xeon Gold 6151 36 Cores 384GB RAM 4 3.84Tb PCI4.0 NVMe per node. Twinstore Testing - Run the Build environment on these 3 is a HP Dl360 Gen10 2x Xeon Gold 6151 36 Cores 512Gb RAM 4x1.92TB NVMe Drives SuperServer SYS-122H-TN- X14 2x Xeon 6740 96 cores, 512GB RAM, GRAID Card - 4x Pci5.0 7.68TB drives SupremeRAID. All the nodes have 2x100Gbps ports, 2x25Gbps ports. Arista Backed network.

@rvreugde I believe this is already being reviewed internally.

@pszelestey Hi, yes, we've pushed an initial commit and a few more here https://github.com/vatesfr/cluster-api-provider-vates/ it is moging every day. Ping us in Matrix/Discord devops if you want to chat live while trying

@dthenot Thanks a lot for the information. I did some more testing on my end and I've now noticed differences in handling VDI format across different SR types (local LVM and EXT). Should I expect even more differences across remote SR types like LVMoHBA or NFS or are these differences more like block based vs file system based SRs? Any way, it looks like I have to consult the following keys: image-format vdi_type type In my tests, local EXT SRs tend to have only one of them, while local LVM SRs tend to have first two or all three, depends which one was used when creating the VDI.

Xen Project covered this as XSA-489.

Thank you so much for your feedback, @Vagrantin !

Nice catch @vagrantin ! Feel free to open a new thread if you have other problems.

There's no small contributions, every one of them are great & welcome!

@yann Item Opened on Gitlab.

@olivierlambert said in Rust-based guest-tools... How are things going?: The thing is that it works very well and doesn't need fixes… I know, not usual right? It was so stable that we left it like that waiting for people coming for bugs and nothing happened… We'll cut a 1.0 in the next weeks/months. I have indeed seen the stability of it myself. But the lack of updates made me worry anyway. But I'm really looking forward to the promotion to 1.0 as well. Thanks!

My current findings regarding this: https://github.com/xcp-ng-rpms/microsemi-aacraid/issues/2

I had the same question but the responses here was amazing and the following blogpost nailed it. I hope it helps someone else too: https://techdirectarchive.com/2026/01/25/a-z-of-xcp-ng-and-xen-orchestra-setup-and-vm-creation/

I have no clue, I usually back it up with XO, its the one called "XO config & pool metadata backup" and only had to restore it once.

Hi according to gh, it looks like there is traction on this feature: https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp-ng-release/pull/53#discussion_r2642865515 So it might be merged soon...

@exetico I have updated my script. Please use your previous install file (if you have it saved) to remove your previous version (remember to save your config before running uninstall), before you proceed to install the new version.

@Greg_E said in Building XCP-ng from source code: @olivierlambert Ok, thanks. Yes I'm eagerly awaiting XCP-ng 9 for testing. Hi, check this thread: https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/11698/xcp-ng-9.0-demonstrator-early-preview More coming...

@dinhngtu Thanks. We plan to migrate all Windows VMs from the Citrix tools down the road and only have a handful of VMs running these so far so will maybe hold off until the next version. Have been running the Linux rust tools for over a year with zero issues..

@m4rCsi Very nice, thanks for sharing the repo. We will defintely look carefully as we are also working on writing a XO CSI Driver. Ping @Cyrille