@dinhngtu When creating GPOs if you have an non-policy setting for all users in the settings area for the agent config. The policy based registry settings can go into “Software\Policies”, for the appropriate HKEY and keys. In which case the policy based registry entries supersede the non-policy ones, when considering also the HKLM vs HKU and HKCU cascade. Also a disabling of user configuration of the managed setting(s) along with display of a message like “At least some of these settings are managed by the organisation”.

@MajorP93 Ok. Thanks!

@poddingue Fistst of all I appreciate your answer and your position. The thing is that, even though the proxy code itself is opensource, the functionality of the plugin is basicaly behind a paywall. We are not talking about support. Actual functioning of the plugin after compiling from sources depends on license availability and there is no option to select no support or something along the lines "I built it myself from sources". Without patching the code even though the proxy is otherwise functional the backups won't work because of missing license. Hopefully the powers that can will provide an acceptable albeit community supported way to use the proxy cleanly, without touching license checks. Best regards!

Then, my earlier suggestion about upgrading was wrong, sorry, better to say so before you spend an evening on it. I went and read the RPU code (it's about time!): shutdownPinnedVms only handles VM_HAS_PCI_ATTACHED, VM_HAS_VGPU and VM_HAS_SRIOV_VIF, and when anything else turns up, it hands back to XAPI's CANNOT_EVACUATE_HOST on purpose. VM_REQUIRES_SR is not in that list, so an upgrade will not move you past it. On the Rolling Pool Update side, the docs say all VM disks have to be on shared storage (https://docs.xcp-ng.org/management/updates), and the host reboot guide defines an agile VM as one not tied to local storage or local devices (https://docs.xcp-ng.org/guides/host-reboot). With everything on local NVMe, that reads to me like RPU is closed to you by design rather than by bug. The route the docs give for your case is the manual one: disable the host, shut the VMs down or migrate them, then reboot. The Smart Reboot message looks like a separate problem. In XO's smartReboot a VM counts as suspend blocked in two different cases, either when blocked_operations.suspend is set, or when XAPI itself refuses VM.assert_operation_valid for suspend. The message only describes the first, which might be why clearing the protection changed nothing. These two will show which one you are in: xe vm-list is-control-domain=false params=name-label,blocked-operations xe vm-list is-control-domain=false power-state=running params=name-label,allowed-operations If suspend is missing from allowed-operations, then XAPI is refusing it rather than a flag you set. I ran both on 8.3, so I know they print something per VM. I have not tested any of this on a two-host pool, though, so the VM_REQUIRES_SR part is my reading of the code rather than something I reproduced.

Pour l'ISO montée deux fois : My bad, j'ai ajouter un truc en trop sur mon précédent fix. Une PR est en cours pour corriger ça. Pour le problème principal : J'ai identifié la cause, mais je n'ai pas encore de solution. Sans les drivers Xen (non initialisés avant l'installation), une VM est limitée à 4 périphériques. La séquence de boot ne peut donc pas détecter le second disque contenant le fichier Kickstart (ks). Côté Packer, on semble être bloqués par cette contrainte XCP-ng. Les seules alternatives actuelles seraient de se limiter à : 2 disques + 2 CD ou 3 disques + 1 CD + HTTP (Note : L'installation manuelle fonctionne car l'installateur démarre directement, avec le driver xen_blkfront, alors qu'avec Packer, l'injection de notre fichier interrompt le flux de démarrage classique). Je vais fouiller encore un peu, mais sans certitude d'un contournement possible. (et je regarde pour ajouter le CDlabel)

On a Lenovo SR630 V4 it took Power/Performance Bias set to OS Controlled, and on an HPE DL380 Gen 11 it was the iLO Power Regulator moved off Dynamic Power Savings to OS Control Mode, with a host reboot. Both then returned real values from xenpm get-cpufreq-para instead of the failure line. @bleader is right that two vendors is not enough to document, so if your host works, could you post the vendor, the exact setting name, where it lives, and whether you needed a reboot? Dell, Supermicro and anything AMD are the obvious gaps. I don't know whether the firmware is withholding p-state control outright or just not publishing the ACPI objects Xen looks for, so I would rather collect settings than write up a mechanism I can't back. Thanks!

It's more like "partially"/loosely based on Alma (10, not 9). And yes, the kernel will be far more recent, same for Xen and so on.

@neal https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/issues/10260

@acebmxer No problem, that's excellent news, thanks for the feedback!

No problem, this is always good to have feedback and cases showing an error and the explanation

Question for @Team-XO-Backend

@MajorP93 Last Message from Veeam: Veeam Support - Case # 08187386 thank you for your email! We are currently waiting for R&D team conclusion, and a bit more time is required for the investigation. I am sorry for the possible inconveniences here! Best regards, Viktoria Nesmiyanova Technical Customer Support - EMEA Veeam Software

I put both of your questions on a spare host, because I couldn't answer either from memory. On colons: xe creates a key literally called auto_poweron:true with an empty value, so the entries you saw were three separate keys and none was the real auto_poweron, and typing false afterwards just made another one. It exits 0 and prints nothing every time, which I'd call a rough edge rather than a feature, though other-config is free-form by design so I don't know that the CLI is meant to validate keys at all. On the sleep: with rc.local executable and no sleep, it fired at 16 seconds of uptime and xe appliance-start came back with Error: Connection refused (calling connect ), exit 1, in under a tenth of a second. The VM stayed halted and nothing was reported anywhere, since rc.local has no terminal to print to. rc-local.service only orders after basic.target and network.target, nothing toolstack-related, while xapi-wait-init-complete.service took 30 seconds on that host, which is presumably why 60 was barely enough for you. There's an xapi-init-complete.target that looks like the right thing to order a unit against instead of guessing at a delay, though I haven't tried it so treat that as a lead rather than advice. The executable-bit half is in the docs now, it went onto the troubleshooting page after you reported it: https://docs.xcp-ng.org/troubleshooting/common-problems

@poddingue Here is the ouput of the command: $ xe host-list params=uuid,name-label,address uuid ( RO) : 8b0ac09d-a723-4a18-85ae-86660746d8aa name-label ( RW): frodo address ( RO): 192.168.1.13 uuid ( RO) : 2b1579d3-d45a-4d67-a423-20ddbbd61e00 name-label ( RW): meriadoc address ( RO): 192.168.1.12 uuid ( RO) : 7641f7a2-5774-4303-939f-afc3b6b4e35e name-label ( RW): samwise.somezone.net address ( RO): 192.168.1.10 With moving it to the Docker container, I only did that after I was already experiencing the same issue with a system that used the script to setup XO. I had hoped it was something on the XO side but it's seems more like it's the XCP-NG side.

I put this on a spare host rather than guess at it twice. The delay runs after the start, not before it. With start-delay=20 the VM was up in about a second and the call then sat there for the rest of the twenty before returning. So the VM you set it on is already running, and what waits is whatever was going to happen next. Ordering does exist, but it belongs to vApps: an appliance groups VMs and order decides which goes first (https://docs.xcp-ng.org/vms/vm-lifecycle#vapps). The part that surprised me is that nothing starts an appliance when the host boots. I put both test VMs in one, rebooted, and they stayed down. Autostart is a single bulk start of everything flagged for auto power on, it walks them one at a time, and it ignores order. I set order=2 on a VM and it still went first. So a delay does hold up the VMs behind it at boot, which is probably what you were seeing, but you cannot pick which one goes first. For your NAS and seedbox I do not think there is a clean answer today. There is an open request for exactly that, a VM that waits on another VM: https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/issues/8433, and your case would be a good one to add to it. What I still cannot explain is why yours stopped starting at all. A delay stalling the ones behind it would explain a late start, not one that never comes up.

I forgot to mention: XOA Premium Current version: 6.6.2 (stable channel)

Any update on this? It is a drawback. It is also in the wrong format under snapshots. XO 5 has the format: July 17, 2026 or 2026-07-17 depending on the screen.

Version 4.7 build 105 works fine with applied fix (modules/path). I have made upgrade form 4.5 -> 4.7, before update I have uninstall all plugins than upgrade to 4.7. Apply fixes and install plugins.

The July updates batch that went out on 28 July carries xapi-26.1.11-1.3.xcpng8.3, and @kagbasi-wgsdac has since confirmed on https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp/issues/825 that three days after patching his disks are all visible again and reverting a snapshot no longer duplicates VDIs. The blog entry for that batch names the fix as non-snapshotted VBDs staying attached after VM.revert, a regression from xapi-26.1.4-3.3: https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2026/07/28/july-2026-updates-1-for-xcp-ng-8-3-lts/. Host reboots are needed. That stops new damage, but it does not unstamp VDIs that were already hit, so if disks are still hidden after you patch you probably still want the repair script at https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/105564. My post above also had the mechanism wrong, and @kagbasi-wgsdac corrected it: the field being wrongly written is snapshot-of on base disks, not is-a-snapshot. If anyone is still watching disks disappear on a fully updated pool, please say so here, because that would be something new rather than the tail of this one.