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

    Citrix Hypervisor 8.0 landed

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
    65 Posts 20 Posters 34.8k Views 7 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.
    • P Offline
      Prilly
      last edited by

      Can anybody that has the means try to run Citrix Hypervisor 8.0 on those legacy 56xx series CPUs?

      C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • borzelB Offline
        borzel XCP-ng Center Team @nuts23
        last edited by

        nuts23 did you use fresh installed windows or "used" ones?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C Offline
          crash @Prilly
          last edited by

          Prilly I installed Citrix Hypervisor 8.0 on my Dell C6100 which is running L5630 CPU and it booted just fine.

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

            crash you can even try with XCP-ng 8.0 now 😉 (still beta but will be useful to try)

            C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • C Offline
              crash @olivierlambert
              last edited by

              olivierlambert Prilly Just loaded the XCP-ng 8.0 successfully on a Dell C6100 with 2 x L5630.

              No errors during install, and boots up just fine for use.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
              • P Offline
                Prilly
                last edited by

                Thanks you guys for testing the l5630 cpu, this gave me confidence to upgrade my dell r610 with 2x x5675 cpus with hypervisor 8.0, upgrade was done with iso and cd and the upgrade process went very smooth, server boot up and everything seems almost nice.

                i did notice it load cpu microcode rev 1f on boot, i also notices systemd is throwing a error on boot: systemd failed to load kernel modules, this has no impact and the host is running fine with no error other than that. i suspect the error might be related to upgrade fra 7.6, i will try to reinstall 8.0 as a fresh install and see if this clears the kernel modules stuff.

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

                  From what I see in https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/corporate-information/SA00233-microcode-update-guidance_05132019.pdf X5675 CPUs are not supported by Intel itself anymore, so no mitigation for you for the MDS attacks 😕

                  And that's why no vendor can say they "support" it anymore, since no one can guarantee the security of anything running on them now.

                  P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • P Offline
                    Prilly @stormi
                    last edited by Prilly

                    stormi as long as you dont have any untrusted vms running on this cpus there is no problem with security issues.

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

                      Prilly You're fine if you're running trusted workload. This includes VMs themselves and everything that gets executed in it. Including maybe javascript or webassembly stuff on some not-so-trusted websites. This also means that a compromised VM due to a security flaw in the VM or something badly configured or access obtained through social engineering can leverage the hardware security flaws to get access to sensitive data not only from within the VM but also from other VMs.

                      So, I agree with you but we need to be careful about the definition of "trusted".

                      D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M Offline
                        maxcuttins @cg
                        last edited by

                        cg said in Citrix Hypervisor 8.0 landed:

                        maxcuttins said in Citrix Hypervisor 8.0 landed:

                        I throw down one of my xcp-host to setup a not-nested-virtualized xen-8 in order to test RBD speed. Performance are about 4x slower than they should be but at least it run almost like a standard local disk.

                        dd if=/dev/zero of=./test.img bs=1G count=1 oflag=dsync
                        1+0 records in
                        1+0 records out
                        1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 1.86156 s, 577 MB/s
                        

                        1G is usually a really bad test, as pretty small things can influence the result massively.
                        You should run tests with 10 or better 100 - if you can.
                        That also diminishes influence of any caches (on source and target!).

                        Not very good.
                        Here is 10M:

                        dd if=/dev/zero of=./test1.img bs=10M count=1 oflag=dsync
                        1+0 records in
                        1+0 records out
                        10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0545468 s, 192 MB/s
                        

                        and here 100M:

                        dd if=/dev/zero of=./test1.img bs=100M count=1 oflag=dsync
                        1+0 records in
                        1+0 records out
                        104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 0.266544 s, 393 MB/s
                        
                        C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • C Offline
                          cg @maxcuttins
                          last edited by cg

                          maxcuttins did you really measure 10 and 100 MB after I said 1 G is not enough for accurate results?

                          Usually you set blocksize to something usefull, like 1M and set count to e.g. 10000.
                          Of course you can change blocksize to test a bit, but that's usually between like 64k and maybe 4M.

                          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • M Offline
                            maxcuttins @cg
                            last edited by

                            cg said in Citrix Hypervisor 8.0 landed:

                            maxcuttins did you really measure 10 and 100 MB after I said 1 G is not enough for accurate results?

                            Usually you set blocksize to something usefull, like 1M and set count to e.g. 10000.
                            Of course you can change blocksize to test a bit, but that's usually between like 64k and maybe 4M.

                            Ah did you intend 10G? instead of 10M?

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • C Offline
                              cg
                              last edited by

                              First rule of all benchmarks: The longer and more often they run, the more precise they are.
                              If we talk about 1G as base, why should I switch with 10 or 100 to M? That doesn't make any sense at all.

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

                                I heard in several places over this forum that fio would be a better benchmark than dd. Does it apply here too?

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

                                  It's always better than dd, because it's closer to a real load.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • C Offline
                                    cg @stormi
                                    last edited by cg

                                    stormi dd stands for disk dump and does exactly that: Copy a stream of data.
                                    Fio however can be configured for precise workloads and read/write mixes, parallel workloads etc.

                                    So the first thing will only give you streamline benchmarks, what almost nobody cares about.
                                    The second can simulate realworld (VM/database...) workloads, where (controller) Caches and non magnetic storage (Flash, Optane, MRAM...) makes the real difference.
                                    Also use big amount of data, since caches can impact small ones extremely. Don't get me wrong: We need them and they can make huge differences, but as long as your benchmarks fully fit into them, it gives your nonsense/fake results. Also (consumer) SSDs start throttling after some 10 to a very few 100 GB of data written. Their caches fill up and they 'overheat'.

                                    You can spend days on benchmarks and how to do what. 😉

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                    • First post
                                      Last post