@laszlobortel since we are generating the stream sequentially, we though that there wasn't any real world gain. Also, if my understanding is correct using one thread means we will have only one process( + xo + nbdkit-vddk) processes , and we were trying to limit the risk of zombie process locking the disks , which was far too common with the previous code we'll do a quick test to ensure it does not beak anything and propose either a better default of a configuration option note that this will be a concurrency per disk, so VM with a lot of disk will put more pressure on the source

@dinhngtu it still wouldn't boot with the correct template. That said, I have been testing other VMs which were created on xcp-ng, with the correct templates, and get better performance out of them when they are migrated to a hyper-v host. I believe that this is related to SMAPIv1 limitations - which are known and being actively worked on with SMAPIv3. Unfortunately for us at this point, xcp-ng may not fit our business - hopefully one day soon it will be, but until then, it is what it is.

1: Yes, I have seen some of @AtaxyaNetwork Proxmox posts. I'll go back and read them again. 2: No big deal, I only have like 5 vm's on Proxmox, V2V is my choice of tools!

Since you're changing all of the underlying hardware that the guest has, Microsoft is going to force you to reactive. You could look at setting up a licensing server to manage these systems and then feed them that information so they can validate and then license. This isn't an issue presented by XCP-ng (or literally any other hypervisor), its a Microsoft restriction to ensure you aren't stealing their software.

Thanks for the info and the faster than light answer ️

Great! @jkissane please open a new thread if you want to continue discussing your issue