XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!

olivierlambert

Yup, but before (0.8) it wasn't good for performances, at all, due to cache poisoning (no O_DIRECT support).

cocoon

Any chance to get a newer lsblk that supports json output?
Would be great for plugins and would make parsing output much easier.

Currently installed on XCP-ng 8 beta: util-linux-2.23.2-52.el7_5.1.x86_64

(something later than v2.27?)
https://git.devuan.org/CenturionDan/util-linux/commit/4a102a4871fdb415f4de5af9ffb7a2fb8926b5d1

... ah forget it, I see, CentOS is using the old versions since long time ...

stormi

@cocoon said in XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!:

... ah forget it, I see, CentOS is using the old versions since long time ...

Yeah the chances that we'd change the version of such a low level package just for added functionality are very low.

cocoon

@stormi yes and I totally understand that ... I just thought at first, it is so old, there must be something new if CentOS 7.5 is new ... but no

akurzawa

hi

Is this possible to install xcp-ng in xcp-ng just for tests?

ruskofd

Sure you need to enable Nested Virtualization when you create your VM and that's it.

borzel

@akurzawa https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp/wiki/Testing-XCP-ng-in-Virtual-Machine-(Nested-Virtualization)

ruskofd

Just updated my homelab server from XCP-ng 7.6 to XCP-ng 8.0 Beta, so far so good. I also tested the new experimental UEFI mode with Windows VM, seems good too.

I also tested the new XOA deployment through the Web interface of my host, perfect !

We will see during the following week how it goes

peder

It does NOT work to migrate a paravirtualized (PV) CentOS6 machine or a PVHVM CentOS7 between two "servers" with Core i3-3110M CPUs in 8.0beta.
C6 throws a "xenopsd, error from emu-manager: Invalid argument" and C7 "xenopsd, error from emu-manager: xenguest Invalid argument".

It works on the exact same hardware in 7.6 so that seems to be a new "unsupported old CPU" limitation, unless it's a proper bug in 8.0b.

I can migrate a Fedora28 (HVM) on that hardware in 8.0b so it appears to depend on what virtualization method the machine uses.

stormi

@peder Thanks for testing. It confirms our recent findings related to PV guests indeed! We're working on it and will post here once it's fixed.

peder

@stormi Nice to hear, thanks!

ronan-a

@peder Fixed! This fix will be available (as soon as possible) in a future xcp-emu-manager package.

stormi

I have updated https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp/wiki/Test-XCP with lots of new tests for those who need ideas

s_mcleod

Just FYI - I have performed CPU and PGBench benchmarks on XCP-ng 8 beta 1, both with Hyperthreading enabled and disabled when running two identical VMs under different types of low, medium and heavy CPU load.

Results are available here: https://github.com/sammcj/benchmark_results/tree/master/xcpng/8/hyperthreading_impact

TLDR;

Significant performance decrease (38.7725%) when running multithreaded Sysbench CPU benchmarks in parallel on two VMs when hyperthreading is disabled.
Significant performance decrease (16.96%) when running PGBench under 'normal' load benchmarks in parallel on two VMs when hyperthreading is disabled.
No significant performance decrease when running Phoronix Test Suite's Pybench and OpenSSL benchmarks in parallel on two VMs when hyperthreading is disabled.

stormi

yum update will now install the latest xcp-ng-emu-manager that fixes the PV guest migration and brings better debug traces in case of crash of the emu-manager binary. We'd be interested if anyone managed to make a migration fail.

Testing ideas still at https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp/wiki/Test-XCP

MajorTom

@s_mcleod Hi, I'd like to do some basic benchmarks (though not on 8.0.0, but 7.6 still) to compare a host before and after disabling SMT (hyper-threading).

I thought I'd use some hints from your document at https://github.com/sammcj/benchmark_results/tree/master/xcpng/8/hyperthreading_impact

But the "Test 2 - Sysbench Multithreaded Prime Benchmark" link (https://github.com/sammcj/benchmark_results/blob/master/xcpng/8/hyperthreading_impact/hyperthreading_impact/test_2_sysbench_prime.md) returns "404 page not found".

Maybe you'd want to correct the link? Thank you!

peder

@stormi I just managed to make migration fail using xcp-emu-manager-1.1.1-1 and xcp-ng-generic-lib-1.1.1-1

I have a PVHVM guest (CentOS7) which has static memory limit = 128M/2G and dynamic = 1G/1G and the migration fails after about 20% with a "xenguest invalid argument"
It works if I set static and dynamic max to the same value.

Migration of a PVHVM Fedora 28 with static 1G/2G and dynamic 1G/1G works so it's possible it's the 128M static min that's part of the problem in the CentOS case.

A PV CentOS6 with static = 512M/2G and dynamic 1G/1G also works.

stormi

@peder Thanks! Could you make it fail once again and then produce a bug status report on both hosts with xen-bugtool -y and send the the produced tarballs to the project contact address, or to upload it somewhere temporarily for us to download?

olivierlambert

I just made a try here, I can't reproduce with the same guest OS and memory settings.

Are you also doing Xen Storage motion?

peder

@stormi I've placed the tarballs here https://student.oedu.se/~peder/xcp-ng/
I changed the static min to 512M, to match the Fedora case, but it still failed.

Olivier, I'm not using Xen Storage motion but I am using two old Lenovo L430 Thinkpads as "servers" so that could be part of the problem.

I'll install a new C7 guest and see if the problem persists.