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.
    • olivierlambertO Online
      olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
      last edited by

      Good 🙂 So now you are on ZoL 0.8, no need to disable sync anymore 🙂

      A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • A Offline
        AllooTikeeChaat @olivierlambert
        last edited by

        olivierlambert
        I'm assuming that sync is enabled by default ?

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

          Yup, but before (0.8) it wasn't good for performances, at all, due to cache poisoning (no O_DIRECT support).

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • C Offline
            cocoon XCP-ng Center Team
            last edited by

            Any chance to get a newer lsblk that supports json output?
            Would be great for plugins and would make parsing output much easier.

            Currently installed on XCP-ng 8 beta: util-linux-2.23.2-52.el7_5.1.x86_64

            (something later than v2.27?)
            https://git.devuan.org/CenturionDan/util-linux/commit/4a102a4871fdb415f4de5af9ffb7a2fb8926b5d1

            ... ah forget it, I see, CentOS is using the old versions since long time ...

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

              cocoon said in XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!:

              ... ah forget it, I see, CentOS is using the old versions since long time ...

              Yeah the chances that we'd change the version of such a low level package just for added functionality are very low.

              C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C Offline
                cocoon XCP-ng Center Team @stormi
                last edited by

                stormi yes and I totally understand that ... I just thought at first, it is so old, there must be something new if CentOS 7.5 is new ... but no 😕

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • akurzawaA Offline
                  akurzawa
                  last edited by

                  hi

                  Is this possible to install xcp-ng in xcp-ng just for tests?

                  borzelB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • ruskofdR Offline
                    ruskofd
                    last edited by

                    Sure you need to enable Nested Virtualization when you create your VM and that's it.

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

                      akurzawa https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp/wiki/Testing-XCP-ng-in-Virtual-Machine-(Nested-Virtualization)

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • ruskofdR Offline
                        ruskofd
                        last edited by

                        Just updated my homelab server from XCP-ng 7.6 to XCP-ng 8.0 Beta, so far so good. I also tested the new experimental UEFI mode with Windows VM, seems good too.

                        I also tested the new XOA deployment through the Web interface of my host, perfect !

                        We will see during the following week how it goes 😉

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • P Offline
                          peder
                          last edited by

                          It does NOT work to migrate a paravirtualized (PV) CentOS6 machine or a PVHVM CentOS7 between two "servers" with Core i3-3110M CPUs in 8.0beta.
                          C6 throws a "xenopsd, error from emu-manager: Invalid argument" and C7 "xenopsd, error from emu-manager: xenguest Invalid argument".

                          It works on the exact same hardware in 7.6 so that seems to be a new "unsupported old CPU" limitation, unless it's a proper bug in 8.0b.

                          I can migrate a Fedora28 (HVM) on that hardware in 8.0b so it appears to depend on what virtualization method the machine uses.

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

                            peder Thanks for testing. It confirms our recent findings related to PV guests indeed! We're working on it and will post here once it's fixed.

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

                              stormi Nice to hear, thanks!

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • ronan-aR Offline
                                ronan-a Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                                last edited by ronan-a

                                peder Fixed! This fix will be available (as soon as possible) in a future xcp-emu-manager package.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                • stormiS Offline
                                  stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                                  last edited by

                                  I have updated https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp/wiki/Test-XCP with lots of new tests for those who need ideas 🙂

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • s_mcleodS Offline
                                    s_mcleod
                                    last edited by s_mcleod

                                    Just FYI - I have performed CPU and PGBench benchmarks on XCP-ng 8 beta 1, both with Hyperthreading enabled and disabled when running two identical VMs under different types of low, medium and heavy CPU load.

                                    Results are available here: https://github.com/sammcj/benchmark_results/tree/master/xcpng/8/hyperthreading_impact

                                    TLDR;

                                    • Significant performance decrease (38.7725%) when running multithreaded Sysbench CPU benchmarks in parallel on two VMs when hyperthreading is disabled.

                                    • Significant performance decrease (16.96%) when running PGBench under 'normal' load benchmarks in parallel on two VMs when hyperthreading is disabled.

                                    • No significant performance decrease when running Phoronix Test Suite's Pybench and OpenSSL benchmarks in parallel on two VMs when hyperthreading is disabled.

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

                                      yum update will now install the latest xcp-ng-emu-manager that fixes the PV guest migration and brings better debug traces in case of crash of the emu-manager binary. We'd be interested if anyone managed to make a migration fail.

                                      Testing ideas still at https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp/wiki/Test-XCP

                                      P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • MajorTomM Offline
                                        MajorTom @s_mcleod
                                        last edited by

                                        s_mcleod Hi, I'd like to do some basic benchmarks (though not on 8.0.0, but 7.6 still) to compare a host before and after disabling SMT (hyper-threading).

                                        I thought I'd use some hints from your document at https://github.com/sammcj/benchmark_results/tree/master/xcpng/8/hyperthreading_impact

                                        But the "Test 2 - Sysbench Multithreaded Prime Benchmark" link (https://github.com/sammcj/benchmark_results/blob/master/xcpng/8/hyperthreading_impact/hyperthreading_impact/test_2_sysbench_prime.md) returns "404 page not found".

                                        Maybe you'd want to correct the link? Thank you!

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

                                          stormi I just managed to make migration fail using xcp-emu-manager-1.1.1-1 and xcp-ng-generic-lib-1.1.1-1 🙂

                                          I have a PVHVM guest (CentOS7) which has static memory limit = 128M/2G and dynamic = 1G/1G and the migration fails after about 20% with a "xenguest invalid argument"
                                          It works if I set static and dynamic max to the same value.

                                          Migration of a PVHVM Fedora 28 with static 1G/2G and dynamic 1G/1G works so it's possible it's the 128M static min that's part of the problem in the CentOS case.

                                          A PV CentOS6 with static = 512M/2G and dynamic 1G/1G also works.

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

                                            peder Thanks! Could you make it fail once again and then produce a bug status report on both hosts with xen-bugtool -y and send the the produced tarballs to the project contact address, or to upload it somewhere temporarily for us to download?

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