@Pilow Agree.... have to be sure that garbage collection is completed or it'll never catch up if backups continue to be run without the coalesce completing.

Well i guess i should not have said anything. Backups have been running fine until tonight. Well technically last night. Got email alter that a backup job failed because job already running. This is one of my remote pools. But took a look at the memory usage in XOA.. 9 total vms across 3 pools/locations. 3 vms at the remote site get backed up. [image: 1776129089676-screenshot_20260413_210756-resized.png] [image: 1776129099963-screenshot_20260413_210826-resized.png] The proxy at the remote site. [image: 1776129610036-screenshot_20260413_211942-resized.png] If you want i can create a support ticket.

@Aleksander There are plenty of examples on this forum. We have used Nvidia T4, it works very well.

@anthoinebThe problem still persists; when can we expect it to be resolved?

perhaps "in the context of a proceeding RPU, do not start halted VMs" ? or "boot only halted VMs that have HA enabled" ? but I can imagine corner cases where this is not wanted. some chicken & egg problem.

@Mark-C this is not forgotten, but file level restore has been under priorised, so it didn't get much work it is now quite high on our backlog , so expect good news in the next months

@tsukraw No worries! Just glad that we can all help each other out!

@flakpyro that's a good news ( but at least another user saw this) we are currently testing the branch ensuring that at least the fix don't create other issues

@pilow @majorp93 Hi, we've detected a memory leak at the REST API level. We pushed a fix on the branch: mra-fix-rest-memory-leak Can you test the branch?

Hi @olivierlambert and @pilow Thank you for your answers, it helps a lot, Regards, Olivier

Hi, thanks for the heads-up, we will see about doing some comparison with the backups refactoring on our dev environment to check if we lost some speed and try to fix it if so. Very happy to hear that the issue is mostly resolved. We will patch this ASAP.

@TechGrips Sorry, there is no quick test to be sure the VM is not corrupted. The usual way would be to make a healthcheck. We cannot be sure everything is ok as it concerns multiple tar linked to each other. If it keeps warning you on the same backups, it may be due to a faulty parent. You would need for this to create a new chain of snapshot

@cobordism said: yum update --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=xcp-ng-base,xcp-ng-updates It's currently in testing and will move to updates if everything (not only nut) is ok: yum install --disablerepo=* \ --enablerepo=xcp-ng-base,xcp-ng-updates,xcp-ng-testing nut

new mail received from Laurent Nguyen today Bonjour, Face à la hausse des tarifs VMware, nous vous invitons à remplir un questionnaire pour mieux comprendre vos attentes et améliorer nos services. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/288HCLL Merci d’avance pour votre temps. Et si n’est pas encore fait, n’oubliez pas de vous inscrire au Veeam Technical Cloud Club qui aura lieu le Jeudi 16 Avril 2026 : https://go.veeam.com/webinar-technical-cloud-club-france Go give some love to XCP-NG + VEEAM collaboration in the survey !

@omatsei said: @omatsei I figured out the problem. There appears to be a bug in XO that requires you to check "Check Certificate" and/or "Start TLS", save the configuration, then uncheck them, then save again. Then it should work. The bug is that they're unchecked by default, but apparently they're enabled in the background. Thanks for that, I was stump on this one trying to reconfigure a new instance. This is defintely the case even with the latest auth-ldap (v0.10.11) plugin.

Here's a work in progress version of the FAQ that will go with the release. QCOW2 FAQ What storage space available do I need to have on my SR to have large QCOW2 disks to support snapshots? Depending on a thin or thick allocated SR type, the answer is the same as VHD. A thin allocated is almost free, just a bit of data for the metadata of a few new VDI. For thick allocated, you need the space for the base copy, the snapshot and the active disk. Must I create new SRs to create large disks? No. Most existing SR will support QCOW2. LinstorSR and SMBSR (for VDI) does not support QCOW2. Can we have multiples different type of VDIs (VHD and QCOW2) on the same SR? Yes, it’s supported, any existing SR (unless unsupported e.g. linstor) will be able to create QCOW2 beside VHD after installing the new sm package What happen in Live migration scenarios? preferred-image-formats on the PBD of the master of a SR will choose the destination format in case of a migration. source preferred-image-format VHD or no format specified preferred-image-format qcow2 qcow2 >2 TiB X qcow2 qcow2 <2 TiB vhd qcow2 vhd vhd qcow2 Can we create QCOW2 VDI from XO? XO hasn’t yet added the possibility to choose the image format at the VDI creation. But if you try to create a VDI bigger than 2TiB on a SR without any preferred image formats configuration or if preferred image formats contains QCOW2, it will create a QCOW2. Can we change the cluster size? Yes, on File based SR, you can create a QCOW2 with a different cluster size with the command: qemu-img create -f qcow2 -o cluster_size=2M $(uuidgen).qcow2 10G xe sr-scan uuid=<SR UUID> # to introduce it in the XAPI The qemu-img command will print the name, the VDI is <VDI UUI>.qcow2 from the output. We have not exposed the cluster size in any API call, which would allow you to create these VDIs more easily. Can you create a SR which only ever manages QCOW2 disks? How? Yes, you can by setting the preferred-image-formats parameter to only qcow2. Can you convert an existing SR so that it only manages QCOW2 disks? If so, and it had VHDs, what happens to them? You can modify a SR to manage QCOW2 by modifying the preferred-image-formats parameter of the PBD’s device-config. Modifying the PBD necessitates to delete it and recreate it with the new parameter. This implies stopping access to all VDIs of the SR on the master (you can for shared SR migrate all VMs with VDIs on other hosts in the pool and temporarily stop the PBD of the master to recreate it, the parameter only need to be set on the PBD of the master). If the SR had VHDs, they will continue to exist and be usable but won’t be automatically transformed in QCOW2. Can I resize my VDI above 2 TiB? A disk in VHD format can’t be resized above 2 TiB, no automatic format change is implemented. It is technically possible to resize above 2 TiB following a migration that would have transferred the VDI to QCOW2. Is there any thing to do to enable the new feature? Installing updated packages that supports QCOW2 is enough to enable the new feature (packages: xapi, sm, blktap). Creating a VDI bigger than 2 TiB in XO will create a QCOW2 VDI instead of failing. Can I create QCOW2 disks lesser than 2 TiB? Yes, but you need to create it manually while setting sm-config:image-format=qcow2 or configure preferred image formats on the SR. Is QCOW2 format the default format now? Is it the best practice? We kept VHD as the default format in order to limit the impact on production. In the future, QCOW2 will become the default image format for new disks, and VHD progressively deprecated. What’s the maximum disk size? The current limit is set to 16 TiB. It’s not a technical limit, it’s a limit that we corresponds to what we tested. We will raise it progressively in the future. We’ll be able to go up to 64 TiB before meeting a new technical limit related to live migration support, that we will adress at this point. The theoretical maximum is even higher. We’re not limited by the image format anymore. Can I import without modification my KVM QCOW2 disk in XCP-ng? No. You can import them, but they need to be configured to boot with the drivers like in this documentation: https://docs.xcp-ng.org/installation/migrate-to-xcp-ng/#-from-kvm-libvirt You can just skip the conversion to VHD. So it should work depending on different configuration.