@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

@JSylvia007 Sorry, I'm really late to this thread, but note that backups can become problematic if the SR is something like 90% or more full. There needs to be some buffer for storage as part of the process. The fact you could copy/clone VMs means your SR is working OK, but backups are a different situation. If need be, you can always migrate VMs to other storage which is evidently what you ended up doing, which frees up extra disk space. Also backups are pretty intensive so make sure you have both enough CPU capacity and memory to handle the load. Finally. a defective SR will definitely cause issues if there are I/O errors, so watch your /var/log/SMlog for any such entries.

@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 )

@rzr Great. Thank you!

@dinhngtu You rock - thank you!

@Bastien-Nollet I'm running c1e5f btw

@User-cxs peut etre un clnflit IP ou la VM prenait l'IP du master... courage pour la suite !

Ping @Team-XO-Backend

@jerry1333 said: There is nothing else on that host and this is only host in pool but it's using 30% of cpu all the time? it's not using 30% of CPU, you see a graph of cumulated (switch is on) core consumption of your 32 cores. never switch this on. it adds up like that : 32x1%=32%, wrongfully letting you think you are at 30%ish CPU usage.

@Pilow open a dedicated topic on this . I will ping the relevant team there is it iscsi + CBT ?

@Pilow perfect!

I can confirm that when using Citrix/Xenserver guest utilities version 8.4 (https://github.com/xenserver/xe-guest-utilities/releases/tag/v8.4.0) memory ballooning / DMC is working fine. After live migration the RAM of the linux guest is expanded to dynamic_max again. So this issue was in fact caused by Rust based xen-guest-agent. For now I'll keep using Citrix/Xenserver guest utilities on my Linux guests until the feature is implemented in Vates rust-based guest utilities. Best regards

@TeddyAstie Attached is the output you requested xen-cpuid -p.txt

@abudef Some quotes from the documentation to clarify the situation: https://docs.xcp-ng.org/compute/#-nested-virtualization

@dlgroep Thank you, we will take thin/thick token into account and use 'claims' part for other properties.

Come on everyone! Click Here to vote to support HP IPMI info in XO!

But thank you for your time all the same.

@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]