XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!
-
Please create an issue there: https://github.com/xcp-ng/xenadmin/issues
-
What's the info reported by
xe sr-param-list uuid=<UUID OF THIS SR>
? -
@olivierlambert said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:
What's the info reported by
xe sr-param-list uuid=<UUID OF THIS SR>
?xe sr-param-list uuid=3fe64d91-5349-ac86-d9b7-aa9dcf813cea uuid ( RO) : 3fe64d91-5349-ac86-d9b7-aa9dcf813cea name-label ( RW): ssd240Toshiba name-description ( RW): host ( RO): OB1 allowed-operations (SRO): VDI.enable_cbt; VDI.list_changed_blocks; unplug; plug; PBD.create; VDI.disable_cbt; update; PBD.destroy; VDI.resize; VDI.clone; VDI.data_destroy; scan; VDI.snapshot; VDI.mirror; VDI.create; VDI.destroy; VDI.set_on_boot current-operations (SRO): VDIs (SRO): 5da0c967-657f-43f2-8e4a-7cb80b7938ef; 2dd44491-b458-4119-a024-a48ace2a23e3; 05910aa1-8c5e-4af7-8ffc-11dbdcae5116; 60a7602d-ec61-4ef4-9db1-0f3fdbcd43f9 PBDs (SRO): 96e685a7-f5cc-32fa-8289-b10e4a8ea4f5 virtual-allocation ( RO): 481036337152 physical-utilisation ( RO): 153255415808 physical-size ( RO): 192280748032 type ( RO): ext content-type ( RO): user shared ( RW): false introduced-by ( RO): <not in database> is-tools-sr ( RO): false other-config (MRW): i18n-original-value-name_label: Local storage; i18n-key: local-storage sm-config (MRO): devserial: scsi-3500080dc0133cdc2 blobs ( RO): local-cache-enabled ( RO): true tags (SRW): clustered ( RO): false
-
@onur said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:
type ( RO): ext
As expected. The
ext
type has no information of the FS version in its name. -
@stormi said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:
@onur said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:
type ( RO): ext
As expected. The
ext
type has no information of the FS version in its name.
already created bug for XCP-ng center, but it looks like system is not reporting ext type -
Yes, it was just to be sure it's a XCP-ng Center issue Now we are 100% sure.
-
@stormi said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:
I don't think you should trust XCP-ng Center on this. What do you think @borzel?
Check the output of
mount
instead.I think we should not trust I assume the ext4 uses internally the same xapi-ID like the old ext.
-
A better label would just be "ext" so that it works both for ext3 and ext4.
-
Running two hosts on the beta in my lab and so far have had no issues at all (touch wood). Looking forward to this hitting production.
P.
-
Thanks for the feedback!
-
Same here, a single host as well as two host pool are running fine so far. All upgraded via yum from 7.6.
-
Did anyone try the performance of VM export/import yet?
I am really excited to see the increase since this was one of the improvements mentioned by Citrix. -
I've not imported full VM's but have imported a number of disks and they worked reasonably quickly I guess, although I have only very limited reference from another much more powerful setup to compare with.
Peter.
-
This thread is now dead, long live the 8.1 RC thread!