@olivierlambert, yes, thank you. I will open that ticket.

@DustinB Been using it since 2012, non-profits fell under the academic tier and it was originally by number of cpu which was 2 cpu per host, under 192G ram but again didnt include vmotion etc, just plain ole esxi why I used Veeam since it brought replication into the mix again still using them at a very low cost. They had essentials and essentials plus and the academic pricing was very low, my understanding is they would rather you use VMware vs something else. Again I have receipts going back to 2012, pretty much same price for all these years until Broadcom entered the picture. There was nothing sus about it, you had to verify your non-profit category and fit within the limts, it was pretty standard pricing for a low number of cores, I could go to CDW or any reseller and get the same pricing. Why you have so many small companies jumping ship many were using vmware essentials which was WAY cheaper then what they are doing now which the only option is Standard and it now requires min of 16 cores per host @$50/core. That is the new and wonderful world of Broadcom... Anyway, this was pretty common stuff under VMware, why so many folks were using it, even the small shops.

@jkatz hello, thanks for your report. This topic is being studied on our side, we have scheduled a ticket on it in our roadmap. We will keep you informed. Have a good day!

@Kcreed Hi ! I need to re-upload the file, and I will send you the link in DM

@olivierlambert thank you for your response. Just tested with another laptop : no more issue... Well, we will inform our future users and wait for v6 !

some news on these , we did some test and clearly if proxy lost connection we loose all the info.

Thanks for keeping us posted, really appreciated here by all the team

@AtaxyaNetwork It will/it does

I have wondered this myself. [image: 1750783454921-screenshot-2025-06-24-124344.png] { "id": "0mcapon47", "properties": { "name": "Schedule sequence", "userId": "dbf49297-78e4-48c1-a996-a159343f89fe", "type": "xo:schedule:sequence", "progress": 67 }, "start": 1750780800006, "status": "success", "updatedAt": 1750782845608, "end": 1750782845608 } [image: 1750783475725-screenshot-2025-06-24-124427.png]

@florent Expected: Backup A (disabled) run first Backup B (disabled) will run after Backup A Backup C (disabled) will run after Backup B Outcome: All three backups ran in sequence as expected Thank you Florent for the help here

Excellent news, thanks for the feedback!

Yeah I remember it wasn't that easy

Hello @msupport we published a step by step guide, read more in the announcement there https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/94268

@olivierlambert Thanks!

haha we were all noobs when we started, it's fine

Plus one for Clonezilla here, has worked for me migrating Rocky from various hypervisors to xcp-ng.

@creoleMalady You should be able to find the asked setting under the settings for the specific shared folder. Should be something about asynchronous write. If this is enabled things like what you experience can happen. Disable it and the problem should be gone. But there is one thing about that. While it is safer for the data, write speeds might go down a bit depending on your network.

@olivierlambert I’ve got a few VM’s that lock up from time to time. There is no rhyme nor reason (different hosts, different storage, etc). As a result, I just have a job that restarts them at 5:30 am every day. I’d like to have the software tool software restart them but, in the occasion wher the VM is locked up tight as Fort Knox, I’d like the hard reset to happen. Make sense ?

@cocoon hello! For now we are on reflexion on a refactoring to move towards a system more RBAK based, IAM type. We will inform the whole community when we are sure of the direction the new ACL system will take. Stay tuned