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

    XCP-ng 8.3 betas and RCs feedback 🚀

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
    792 Posts 89 Posters 1.3m Views 69 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.
    • D Offline
      Dennis 0 @john.c
      last edited by

      @john-c Are you certain that the IPv6 address+DNS configuration obtained on your laptop + CentOS-machine is actually from DHCP and not from SLAAC?

      Can you send the the IPv6-address you got on your laptop? (Possibly only the last 64 bits if not comfortable sending the entire IP)

      J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • J Offline
        john.c @Dennis 0
        last edited by john.c

        @Dennis-0 Yes I can be certain. As the laptop OS (Windows 10) though later to go Linux. It allows you to configure the automatic IP assignment protocol used. In this case it was set to "Automatic (DHCP)", the option can be set to that or manual. The manual option is another way of saying Static IP address.

        39b5:5b18:bfa2

        D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • D Offline
          Dennis 0 @john.c
          last edited by

          @john-c
          I'm not entirely sure I understand your writing correctly, but be aware that "Automatic (DHCP)" can mean both SLAAC and DHCP. DHCP can't stand alone on the network - SLAAC is also needed for route announcement, so you either get defaultroute/address/DNS from SLAAC only or SLAAC+DHCP. Never DHCP alone.

          Although it is by no means a bulletproof "method", the address part of the last bits of your IP seems a bit too "random" compared to a DHCP-based address - at least from my experience. In the networks I've seen it looks more like DHCP tends to give out more sequential addresses like ::1000:1044.

          You've posted a screenshot further up which has two IPv6-addresses assigned. Both a ULA and a GUA. They are almost definitely SLAAC-based as they both have the last 64-bits in common and looks like EUI64-based. Do you get addresses from both subnets on your laptop too?

          What kind of router do you have on your network? Is it some Busiess-grade Cisco, Juniper etc. or i.e OpenWRT which defaults to announcing a ULA-network (not that others can't, but not that typical AFAIK).

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • A Offline
            alex821982
            last edited by

            Please tell me, is it true that machines from 8.3 are not copied to 8.2 ?
            Copied some machines from 8.2 to 8.3, but does not copy back.

            stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stormiS Offline
              stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @alex821982
              last edited by

              @alex821982 Yes, migration to a lower release is not possible. However you can replicate them using Xen Orchestra's replication feature, which is a way to workaround this constraint.

              A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • A Offline
                alex821982 @stormi
                last edited by

                @stormi Thanks, it works that way)

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

                  Replication or warm migration will work, indeed 🙂

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • A Offline
                    alex821982
                    last edited by

                    Copied, I get the following error when starting up

                    FAILED_TO_START_EMULATOR(OpaqueRef:1286de32-6c5a-4e51-b85c-794e66b4d3f7, varstored, Daemon exited unexpectedly)

                    stormiS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • stormiS Offline
                      stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @alex821982
                      last edited by

                      @alex821982 Interesting. There have been changes in UEFI handling in 8.3, but the daemon failing to start when copied back to 8.2 is unexpected. We'll try to replicate this in our lab. If we can't, we'll ask you for more logs.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stormiS Offline
                        stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @alex821982
                        last edited by

                        @alex821982 Is Secure Boot enabled for this VM in Xen Orchestra? If so, can you try disabling it?

                        A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • A Offline
                          alex821982 @stormi
                          last edited by

                          @stormi
                          No is not enabled. I don 't use this option on any machines at all )

                          stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • stormiS Offline
                            stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @alex821982
                            last edited by

                            @alex821982 What's the operating system on the VM?

                            A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • A Offline
                              alex821982 @stormi
                              last edited by

                              @stormi
                              This is a XOA machine on Ubuntu 22.04

                              BenjiReisB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • S Offline
                                seanmcg182
                                last edited by seanmcg182

                                Went to restart my Server to test my vApp loading, and it didn't actually reboot. The Splash screen cam up as if it was shutting down, and then just stood there.

                                I was able to access XO Lite, and saw this task just stuck there, obviously for 13 minutes.

                                Had to hard reboot, and will check to see if any updates available (probably been a couple days since I checked). If so, I'll try again and report back.

                                f21680a8-e72e-460d-81b1-6331585d0158-image.png

                                UPDATE: No Updates Found. Attempted another reboot. This time it worked. Not sure what locked it up the previous time.

                                B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • B Offline
                                  bufanda @seanmcg182
                                  last edited by bufanda

                                  @seanmcg182 I know I am a bit late but have you tried to press ESC on the spalsh screen, usually you should then see kernel/systemd messages and see which task may have hung there. Just for the next time when it occurs.

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

                                    Yes, that's the usual thing, especially if you have a VM on the same host that is hosting your ISO SR for example (in NFS). The VM will be shutdown, and the NFS will stop answering, and the reboot will be stuck until the timeout is reach (10 minutes?). That might explain why it takes so long to reboot 🙂

                                    S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • S Offline
                                      seanmcg182 @bufanda
                                      last edited by

                                      @bufanda I appreciate the response. I did not know/try that, but I will keep it in mind if it happens again.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • S Offline
                                        seanmcg182 @olivierlambert
                                        last edited by

                                        @olivierlambert Not the case for me. my ISO SR is a local LVM, and my VM SR is a locally mounted HBA... IE, all my VM's can be shut off, and I can still access all my VMDK/VHDs.

                                        The only NFS Storage the XCP-ng is using is for my Backup Schedule, which was not running at that time.

                                        As my edit says though, it worked fine afterwards, and i still havent seen an issues in the last few days since. It was a one-off that I can't reproduce

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • BenjiReisB Offline
                                          BenjiReis Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @alex821982
                                          last edited by

                                          @alex821982 Hi!

                                          We reproduced and find a temporary workaround: on your 8.2 host you can run
                                          xe vm-param-remove uuid=<uuid> param-name=NVRAM param-key=EFI-variables

                                          this will clear the UEFI variables of the NVRAM and so the VM should start after that.
                                          HOWEVER: This does not work on Debian VMs, and on other distro you should make sure to save your VM before in case something goes wrong.

                                          We suspect a change in the auth file format between 8.2 and 8.3 is responsible for this issue.

                                          BR

                                          A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • A Offline
                                            alex821982 @BenjiReis
                                            last edited by

                                            @BenjiReis
                                            Thanks )
                                            But we really have already put 8.2 from iso on it with included fixes, which we gave in another topic.
                                            Therefore, there is no way to check now.
                                            While it was 8.3, I managed to conduct some tests.
                                            Did I understand something wrong or is it quite possible that in some tasks 8.3 is significantly faster on the same hardware than 8.2?

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