@poddingue These are VMs that have been doing full backups fine for a very long time. I have run into the too-much-free-space issue in the past with a different brand new VM but these have been around since I migrated them from VMware during the Broadcom fiasco years ago. It is also totally inconsistent which VMs fail with the body timeout. One day it'll be a single one, the next day it'll be three or four and won't include that one, then it'll be a couple other ones unrelated to any of the earlier ones, then I'll have no failures. It's all over the place. I'm just glad that over the course of several days I get good backups of everything. Oh, a maybe useful data point is that my delta backups that all succeed are handled by a different instance of XO that runs on a different one of the hosts. I might be overly paranoid, but I run full backups and delta backups of the same VMs using different XO instances to different target remotes, at different non-overlapping times. This is part of the reason that I'm not hair-on-fire worried about the failing full backups. A while back I stupidly let one of my Storage Repositories run out of space and it was the one hosting my main XO instance that handled all the backups. It took a while to get it back going again and I realized I wanted redundancy in what handled backups and moved the deltas over to another XO instance. Too many eggs in that one basket. I also wasn't able to restore the backup of that XO instance because that XO instance is what handled the backups. Thankfully it all worked out in the end, plus a number of extra gray hairs it gave me.

@PessimistTech You can try disabling ARI in your bios as a quick next step. I'm out for a few days so will attempt to assist further when I'm back if issues continue

@poddingue I'm in agreement with all of this. I can clearly see the Intel card starting at slot 81 and ending at 84. Unfortunately, in XCP-ng 8.3, only 83 (the "gpu" itself) is visible as an assignable PCI pass-through device. When I pass through just slot 83, I get a dysfunctional result. Again...I'm a little out of my expertise here, but my assumption here is that in order to actually get the full GPU to work, I need to get slots 81-84 passed over to the VM. Problem...In XCP-ng 8.2, you could mask off PCI devices with the pciback.hide function: /opt/xensource/libexec/xen-cmdline --set-dom0 "xen-pciback.hide=(0000:04:01.0)(0000:00:19.0)" Or in my case: /opt/xensource/libexec/xen-cmdline --set-dom0 "xen-pciback.hide=(0000:81:00.0)(0000:82.01.0)(0000:82:02.0)(0000:83:00.0)(0000:84:00.0)" Then you would assign those same PCI devices to the guest VM. In 8.3 you do this with an xe command: xe pci-list and xe pci-disable-dom0-access uuid=<pci uuid> The bridge devices for the Intel card aren't being included in the pci-list of XCP-ng and are therefore not assignable to guests. For example, running "xe pci-list" on a host shows me this single entry relevant to the Intel card: uuid ( RO) : f3e6842b-ad1b-9e93-dbea-214dde28618a vendor-name ( RO): Intel Corporation device-name ( RO): Device e212 pci-id ( RO): 0000:83:00.0 With the new 8.3 method of assigning PCI resources to guest VM's, I don't see how I can fully pass-through the Intel GPU to a guest. I won't necessarily call this a "bug" but it is an unexpected and perhaps edge case behavior that Vates didn't expect.

@christopher-petzel Thanks!

@poddingue Hi, The backup mirror job is still running, and I'm waiting for the larger VMs to complete, but so far it looks good - one backup, larger than 50GB was successfully mirrored without specifying minPartSize. [image: 1783936023727-a5158a60-6607-4679-ac2d-ee9f84c02e4e-image.jpeg]

@olivierlambert said: I'm not sure it's a great idea, because even 64 hosts is huge in terms of VMs and fallout if you have a problem on your pool DB. Even if you drastically improve the current mechanism, the impact of a problem pool wide is far bigger with 64 hosts than 24 for example. It's more than purely tech, it's also a tech design/choice. Exactly, the failure domain just grows exponentially when going beyond a certain collective pool size. I was doing some more research and I found a few possible choices that Tesco may have moved too, but don't want to detract from this forum here.

So if i set VMs to Best-effort or disabled for HA i get not enough memory. @pkgw Do you have Twinstore configured and/or HA enabled? If no I will continue my issues at the twinstore post. If i set to restart i get this.... host.setMaintenanceMode { "id": "35233210-4e37-4703-9bf6-9e8a9c24df9f", "maintenance": true } { "code": "HA_OPERATION_WOULD_BREAK_FAILOVER_PLAN", "params": [], "call": { "duration": 5, "method": "host.disable", "params": [ "* session id *", "OpaqueRef:d9bd976f-445c-8244-1b56-879f446efc12" ] }, "message": "HA_OPERATION_WOULD_BREAK_FAILOVER_PLAN()", "name": "XapiError", "stack": "XapiError: HA_OPERATION_WOULD_BREAK_FAILOVER_PLAN() at XapiError.wrap (file:///opt/xen-orchestra/packages/xen-api/_XapiError.mjs:16:12) at file:///opt/xen-orchestra/packages/xen-api/transports/json-rpc.mjs:38:21 at runNextTicks (node:internal/process/task_queues:65:5) at processImmediate (node:internal/timers:472:9)" }

Hi @simonp. The problem is gone with commit 44e5b!!! Up-to-date XCP-NG host and XenOrchestra VM were restarted after updating XenOrchestra. I just initiated a full backup and all VMs - including my problematic machine - were backed up successfully without error. Awesome! I will wait with closing until the scheduled delta backup is completed successfully, too. Edit: Scheduled backup ran without issue. The problem seems to have been resolved! Thanks for all your work and assistance Regards, Marc

@laszlobortel Hehe yeah, those are pretty old kernels. I'd say there's a good chance kernel upgrades will go a long way to alleviating the CPU hangs. I can't say it's exclusively a problem with lvmohba storage, that's just what we use because of our previous VMware infrastructure was block storage over fiber channel. We knew a physical infra overhaul wasn't in the cards for us for this migration so we stayed with our existing storage system. This bug bit us half way through the migration until we figured out upgrading the kernel generally fixed it.

@TrapoSAMA said: @john.c I have this iso but how to know what is de package? Thx It’s going to be an msi installer package or on the guest tools iso, which is on the XCP-ng or Xen Server your running likely in Local Storage SR or Shared Storage SR (if moved). Named the same as the file linked to above, likely. Anyway did you know that the UEFI SecureBoot certificates (at least one of them from 2011) issued by Microsoft are expiring fully during October 2026. Around that time likely at sometime after then those certificates will be placed into dbx. This means the Windows Server 2012 R2 if operating as a UEFI SecureBoot VM, will if restarted (or reboot following a crash), fail to boot. So your client will go from having a working app that they can use, but not upgrade at the moment to one which won’t work and can’t be used! They really need to upgrade or migrate from Windows to Linux (released during 2025 or 2026) along with the app if needed. Alternatively upgrade to Windows Server 2022 or 2025 and the app!

@kagbasi-wgsdac said: @poddingue Bug report filed as requested — https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp/issues/825 — and tagging @Team-Storage per your suggestion. Full evidence bundle is attached to the issue (versions, sweep output, vhd-util vs xe comparison, SMlog). Summary of what I found: One correction to the mechanism, and I think it matters. The recap describes is-a-snapshot being flipped to true. On my system that isn't what's happening — is-a-snapshot is false on every affected VDI. The field being wrongly written is snapshot-of, which is getting populated on base disks that aren't snapshots at all. XO's disappearing-disks symptom is consistent with either (it filters on a non-empty snapshot-of), but if the storage team is hunting for a bad is-a-snapshot write, that may be the wrong field. Every affected VDI here looks like: is-a-snapshot: false <-- correct snapshot-of: <populated with an unrelated VDI's UUID> <-- wrong A VDI that is a snapshot of itself. The clearest single artifact: uuid: 806f7f42-083f-4a40-b3f1-0700d00bab5a name-label: WinSrv2022SHB_Disk1_Data is-a-snapshot: false snapshot-of: 806f7f42-083f-4a40-b3f1-0700d00bab5a <-- itself snapshot-time: 20260709T11:19:15Z sm-config: vhd-parent: c86e3247-... <-- bears no relation to the snapshot-of value No valid code path produces snapshot-of = self. Whatever writes this field isn't validating the target. It's still actively corrupting new VDIs — this is not just legacy damage. That self-referential VDI was created 2026-07-09, a week after my patch + reboot. Sweeps 9 days apart went from ~180 → 191 affected VDIs on one SR, and a fourth anchor UUID appeared that didn't exist in the first sweep. Newly created VHDs keep landing in the affected set. So "stop it happening again" is the urgent half of the two-part fix, at least in my case. The bogus targets cluster onto a tiny anchor set, and the anchors point at each other: Count Anchor 97 937c3945 (→ a893fdb4) 50 a893fdb4 (→ ea150883) 37 ea150883 7 806f7f42 (→ itself, new since Jul 9) That looks less like corrupted lineage and more like the field being filled from an incorrect/uninitialised source. On-disk VHDs are completely healthy. vhd-util check says valid, parent locators are consistent, GC reports no work. The two VDIs the DB calls parent/child are, on disk, siblings under a common parent. The corruption is purely in the XAPI database — which is good news for recoverability. The VDI_IN_USE is not a real lock. current-operations is empty, xe task-list is empty, no tapdisk holds it. VM.start fails because it's walking a snapshot relationship that doesn't exist on disk. Reproduces from xe on the pool master with XO entirely out of the path — which is why I filed against xcp-ng/xcp rather than the XO tracker. Versions: XCP-ng 8.3.0, xapi 26.1.11 (xapi-core-26.1.11-1.2), sm-3.2.12-17.9, sm-fairlock-3.2.12-17.9, blktap 3.55.5-9.1, build 20260618. I have not attempted to bulk-clear the fields — on-disk data is intact and I'd rather not do a mass write against the XAPI DB on a live SR without guidance. Backing store snapshotted as a safety net. Happy to run whatever diagnostics would help. And +1 to the hand-grenade feeling — the affected set growing on its own is the part that worries me. Has this issue been validated on a storage server built around Debian 13, LVM and ext4 or just TrueNAS when connected to XCP-ng version 8.3.0. As part of the XAPI DB corruption. Can anyone answer this please or give a clue?

Your write-up is the kind of thing that saves the next person a weekend. One thing worth knowing before you commit to the whole-controller route. The passthrough page has a "Passing through Keyboards and Mice" section further down, and it says XCP-ng ships /etc/xensource/usb-policy.conf with DENY rules for mice and keyboards by default. You edit those to ALLOW, then refresh with /opt/xensource/libexec/usb_scan.py -d followed by xe pusb-scan host-uuid=<host_uuid>. It's at https://docs.xcp-ng.org/compute/ under USB Passthrough. I have no idea whether that covers your USB-to-serial adapter, which is a different device class, and passing the whole controller may still be the cleaner setup for two discrete workstations anyway. Might be worth a mention to @Team-Hypervisor-Kernel on the display question, because that one still puzzles me.

Indeed, it should be detected/reported correctly to avoid losing time finding the problem. Let me ping @julienXOVates

@Danp said: Smart Reboot option found on the host's Advanced tab does what you are asking Very nice!

@the_jest Not showen in this picutre but this is where the message would be displayed. Next to the name of the host... [image: 1782931263879-screenshot-2026-07-01-144023.png]

For your storage question, it's fully explained in the doc: https://docs.xcp-ng.org/storage/#-how-to-modify-an-existing-sr-connection And yes, it's planned to get the complete error visible in XO, sadly, it's not "obvious" since the error message isn't returned by XAPI when you try to start but by another method we need to call after it fails ("assert can be started here" from the top of my head). Let me ping @julienXOvates

@poddingue I should already have all the logs, including kernel[image: 1783960418266-2ce97f35-954d-4f1b-88a5-ae0899e75d99-image.jpeg] Nothing has happened since. I am also increasing dom0 ram for all hosts.

I converted the topic to a question, then marked it solved. Thanks!

OK so that resource was a pain and did not want to give up, so I restarted the host. Migration is running good now.