XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
    123 Posts 24 Posters 94.2k Views 6 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • ruskofdR Offline
      ruskofd
      last edited by

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

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • borzelB Offline
        borzel XCP-ng Center Team @akurzawa
        last edited by

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

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • ruskofdR Offline
          ruskofd
          last edited by

          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 😉

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • P Offline
            peder
            last edited by

            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.

            stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stormiS Offline
              stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @peder
              last edited by

              @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.

              P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • P Offline
                peder @stormi
                last edited by

                @stormi Nice to hear, thanks!

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • ronan-aR Offline
                  ronan-a Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                  last edited by ronan-a

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

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                  • stormiS Offline
                    stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                    last edited by

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

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • s_mcleodS Offline
                      s_mcleod
                      last edited by 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.

                      MajorTomM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • stormiS Offline
                        stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                        last edited by

                        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

                        P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • MajorTomM Offline
                          MajorTom @s_mcleod
                          last edited by

                          @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!

                          s_mcleodS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • P Offline
                            peder @stormi
                            last edited by

                            @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.

                            stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • stormiS Offline
                              stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @peder
                              last edited by

                              @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?

                              P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • olivierlambertO Offline
                                olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                last edited by

                                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?

                                P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • P Offline
                                  peder @stormi
                                  last edited by

                                  @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.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • P Offline
                                    peder @olivierlambert
                                    last edited by

                                    @olivierlambert The VM that fails migration seems to have been created in xcp-ng 7.6 using the "Other Media" template.
                                    I made a new VM in xcp-ng 8 using the CentOS7 template and I can migrate that just fine with a larger static max.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • olivierlambertO Offline
                                      olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                      last edited by

                                      Can you provide the full VM record of the problematic one? with

                                      vm param-list uuid=<YOUR FAILING VM UUID>

                                      Also the same with the one now working, so I can compare.

                                      P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • P Offline
                                        peder @olivierlambert
                                        last edited by

                                        @olivierlambert Sure.
                                        I've put the param-list logs as well as the VMs (sans the Disk) on https://student.oedu.se/~peder/xcp-ng/

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • olivierlambertO Offline
                                          olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                          last edited by

                                          So I imported your VM metadata in my lab pool, attached to a VM disk with Debian (so we don't really care about the OS) and it worked 😆

                                          I also attached a disk of a previously working CentOS 7 VM, same thing: migration worked 🐹

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • P Offline
                                            peder
                                            last edited by

                                            Weird.

                                            Maybe it's due to the hardware I'm using. I only have 8 GB RAM in the servers but the migration fails even if I'm not running any other VM.
                                            And since it works if static max=dynamic max it shouldn't be a RAM case either.

                                            Unless the migration for some reason tries to allocate 2-3 times the amount of RAM if static and dynamic max differ.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post