Great! I think this is really the best possible approach to make it clean

PRs upstream are in review

Ping @julienXOVates

Ping @julienXOVates

@the_jest Not showen in this picutre but this is where the message would be displayed. Next to the name of the host... [image: 1782931263879-screenshot-2026-07-01-144023.png]

Thanks, I made the feedback to the XO team, this will be fixed ASAP.

@poddingue Thanks for the reply. I have been checking the source code of the Netbox plugin over the weekend and added the necessary code to enable the virtual disk sync. In Netbox itself, you do need to add the correct permission for it to work. Will do some more testing during the week, and create a pull-request once I'm satisfied with the result. Up to the Vates if they want to merge it into the main branch. Thank you for your reply!

@andibing said: I'm seeing this on XOA: xoa@xoa:~$ sudo xoa-updater --upgrade ✖ { message: 'missing string at offset 151' } xoa@xoa:~$ Unless the sun has got to me, I don't seen any other references to this error. And Gemini was confused too! Any thoughts? Can you please run “df -h” to start? If either / or /tmp/xoa-updater are low on space please increase disk space or run a clean up. The disk space on the VM and/or the SR may be too low, for the update to succeed. The XOA update metadata cache may have become corrupted and need to be cleared, before re-attempting the update. Checking the logs will help to determine if that’s the case.

For your storage question, it's fully explained in the doc: https://docs.xcp-ng.org/storage/#-how-to-modify-an-existing-sr-connection And yes, it's planned to get the complete error visible in XO, sadly, it's not "obvious" since the error message isn't returned by XAPI when you try to start but by another method we need to call after it fails ("assert can be started here" from the top of my head). Let me ping @julienXOvates

mid 2026: you can't add a ipv6 address via XOA (XOA5) because the gui lacs the field for the v6 gateway-address XOA6 lacks feature to configure ips of the host the configuration of ipv6 (static) vie the "gui" on the host seems not be implemented yet (or i am missing something critical) command line configuration inside dom0 of the host is afaik not supported ? Some point looks like minor issues. it would be great to "address" pun intendet that as well

@Danp said: Smart Reboot option found on the host's Advanced tab does what you are asking Very nice!

@Pilow pretty much

@olivierlambert said: I'm not sure it's a great idea, because even 64 hosts is huge in terms of VMs and fallout if you have a problem on your pool DB. Even if you drastically improve the current mechanism, the impact of a problem pool wide is far bigger with 64 hosts than 24 for example. It's more than purely tech, it's also a tech design/choice. Exactly, the failure domain just grows exponentially when going beyond a certain collective pool size. I was doing some more research and I found a few possible choices that Tesco may have moved too, but don't want to detract from this forum here.

@AlexanderK you could try to install perl-interpreter manually maybe? I happened to have a test host at hand that hasn't been updated since december, and the yum update went fine, perl interpreter was not installed before and yum update did install it on its own as a depency for openssl 3. Maybe others will have ideas as to why this would happen in your case.

@tuxen Doing some research, it doesn't look like the Xeon's I have are affected. But I'm willing to try the next time I need to reboot. Will report back after that.

Hello, Thanks for all !

@psafont Thanks for the quick response and clarification. I appreciate you opening a work item for this. Looking forward to seeing this improvement in a future release.

Hi, XCP-ng got an event system that will propagate things like this instantly, at least that's the way it works normally Do you have the same behaviour in Xen Orchestra? Have you reported the issue to CloudStack? If you have an XCP-ng support subscription, you can also open a ticket so we can take a look on XCP-ng status to catch any obvious issue.

The same as @john.c and also XO Lite tends to be less a priority because less critical than the full fledged XO (the priority is to replace entirely XO 5 in the next releases). Why you would need XO Lite outside basic actions? It's mostly meant to bootstrap XO itself and do basic operations (which is already the case, at least with many basic features already). Initially, the goal hasn't moved: replacing XenCenter. We are moving in that direction, but again, I think it's more important to get XO 6 finished first. I'm curious to understand more the use case of XO Lite in your context @unreal-shizzle ?