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

    XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
    123 Posts 24 Posters 94.2k Views 6 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.
    • stormiS Offline
      stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @cg
      last edited by

      @cg said in XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!:

      I created an issue, IMHO it would be good if the problem itself makes it to upstream to either bump someone to fix it or get feedback that problem is known/fixed in version X.Y.Z.

      Thanks for creating the issue.

      You could test with Citrix Hypervisor and then report it at https://bugs.xenserver.org
      Maybe they'll want to investigate even if the hardware is not officially supported. If someone can reproduce the issue on supported hardware, that would make things easier.

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

        @stormi said in XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!:

        You could test with Citrix Hypervisor and then report it at https://bugs.xenserver.org
        Maybe they'll want to investigate even if the hardware is not officially supported. If someone can reproduce the issue on supported hardware, that would make things easier.

        Though I doubt it was woth the effort, as the support over there is well known (especially for not supported configurations etc.) I did it - for the reason of trying to improve stuff (and giving back to OSS community):
        https://bugs.xenserver.org/projects/XSO/issues/XSO-955

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • C Offline
          cg
          last edited by

          I just did the upgrade from 7.6 to 8.0.0 beta via USB-stick (with workaround): I successfully upgraded the existing installation including the softwareraid on the first 2 SSDs.

          # cat /proc/mdstat 
          Personalities : [raid1] 
          md127 : active raid1 sda[0] sdb[1]
                117220736 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU]
                bitmap: 1/1 pages [4KB], 65536KB chunk
          

          Everythings fine, even RAID survived. ZFS stuff will come later. Would be good if that would find a way into XCP-ng Center (is it in XOA yet?) for easier management. Likewise for Ext4.

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

            Find a way to what?

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

              New SR -> Type -> ZFS... creatig a new SR via GUI/XCP-ng Center.

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

                You should really keep an eye on XO dev 😉

                https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/pull/4266

                It's coming this week 🙂

                GHEMID-Mohamed opened this pull request in vatesfr/xen-orchestra

                closed feat(xo-web/new-sr): list ZFS pools at SR creation #4266

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

                  My time is (sadly) limited, I can't wacht/monitor everything.
                  XCP-ng Center? 😉

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

                    XCP-ng Center is only community maintained, so feel free to contribute if you want that inside 🙂

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

                      XCP-ng already ate a bunch of time, and I'm sure it'll continue for testing etc
                      I'm Sysadmin with very limited coding ability - I'm definately out for that.

                      I guess it would need someone being good at C#.NET. Also XAPI would probably need to know about it (what may already be, as you're implementing it into XOA)...

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

                        Clearly, adding feature in XCP-ng Center would require a lot of contributions, that's why I don't think it's the future of XCP-ng "client". Having one great client allows to focus all effort instead of "spreading" the thin capabilities on various similar "ways" to administrate it.

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

                          Yes, this seems to be the case 😕 But XCP-ng Center will remain as it is, at least.

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

                            I think it's a good thing to focus on one "best" tier-one solution, especially on a "small" community like us 🙂

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • bnrstnrB Offline
                              bnrstnr
                              last edited by

                              HP DL360 v7 with (2) Intel E5649 working good so far. Just finished installation and yum updates and everything came right up, as expected.

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

                                As a sidenote for everyone interested into ZFS: Look at the release notes:
                                https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/releases

                                Especially for (my recommended to consider) dedup:

                                Allocation classes #5182 - Allows a pool to include a small number of high-performance SSD devices that are dedicated to storing specific types of frequently accessed blocks (e.g. metadata, DDT data, or small file blocks). A pool can opt-in to this feature by adding a special or dedup top-level device.
                                

                                That means RAM is no more critical (for people who didn't have enough): These dater can now 'oflload' to SSDs, whereas special storage types like Intel Optane should be perfect for that, as they can demonstrate their advantages (high IOPS at small queues, durability, access-time).
                                Optane m.2 cards became pretty affordable - but that feature requires mirroring, so you need 2 of them (I see them priced about 26 € for 16 GB)!

                                As the satet It's not only for dedup, it can also cover small file blocks and metadata, lowering IOPS on your storage.

                                ALSO: TRIM/discard support!

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • R Offline
                                  r53bertyboo
                                  last edited by r53bertyboo

                                  I've installed on a HP ML10 G9 server and all works fine on this server using UEFI based BIOS configuration etc.

                                  The only issue I have found so far is when imported vmdk images using the wizard, even when I choose to set the BIOS to UEFI after the import and conversation has completed the VM won't boot. After looking at the settings for the newly created VM the BIOS is set to BIOS not UEFI.

                                  Simple to resolve either be detaching the storage and removing/recreating the virtual machine and re-attaching the original imported storage. Or I am guessing (although haven't tried yet), using the console to set the machine type.

                                  So possibly an issue with the Import Wizard?

                                  UPDATED

                                  I tried the shell commands to change the imported VM to UEFI, and although initially it looks fine when examining the console and seeing that the BIOS setting has updated. When trying to start the VM it won't boot due to an error. So after detaching the disk and deleting the VM I recreated a new VM using UEFI and no disk attached. Then once created I attached the original imported disk and it works fine.

                                  Also I using VirtualBox to export a VM to OCI Format 1.0 which was setup running as UEFI, after the import into XCP it had changed the BIOS to BIOS not UEFI. So again I followed what I did above and the VM works fine.

                                  So it does look like an issue with the Import Wizard, although it allows you the option to choose BIOS type it doesn't honour the setting and reverts to standard BIOS.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • M Offline
                                    micahgreene2 @olivierlambert
                                    last edited by

                                    This post is deleted!
                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • M Offline
                                      micahgreene2 @olivierlambert
                                      last edited by

                                      @olivierlambert said in XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!:

                                      Dom0 can't boot here. Likely related to a more recent kernel than in 7.6.

                                      Note that I don't have any issue on a Ryzen 7 (2xxx) nor EPYC.

                                      Anyone else with a 2200G?

                                      @olivierlambert Same here but with a Thread ripper CPU. With XCP-ng 8 RC1, I can get part way and then the "Hardware Dom0 halted: halting machine"

                                      With XCP-ng 7.6, but it gives a Panic on CPU 0 error and stops the install

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

                                        Try by reducing dom0 memory in Grub menu

                                        What threadripper exactly?

                                        M 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M Offline
                                          micahgreene2 @olivierlambert
                                          last edited by

                                          @olivierlambert AMD RYZEN Threadripper 2920X

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • M Offline
                                            micahgreene2 @olivierlambert
                                            last edited by

                                            @olivierlambert said in XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!:

                                            Try by reducing dom0 memory in Grub menu

                                            What threadripper exactly?

                                            Do you have a link to a good place to start looking to change that?

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post