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

    [DEPRECATED] SMAPIv3 - Feedback & Bug reports

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
    75 Posts 20 Posters 29.2k Views 19 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.
    • C Offline
      cocoon XCP-ng Center Team @olivierlambert
      last edited by

      @olivierlambert
      Hi, just one question to clarify:
      does it mean I could map an untouched/unmodified LUN to a VM?
      because I have a usecase where it is very important that the (very small) LUN is not modified as it is used as communication device between the storage system and the guest.
      That would be great!
      As soon as this is available I will do some testing!

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

        I think, yes.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • R Offline
          r1 XCP-ng Team
          last edited by r1

          @Marc-pezin said in SMAPIv3 - Feedback & Bug reports:

          yum install xcp-ng-xapi-storage

          This needs to be # yum install xcp-ng-xapi-storage --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing

          I tried following

          [13:33 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# yum install xcp-ng-xapi-storage --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing
          ...
          [13:34 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# systemctl start qemuback.service
          [13:34 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# systemctl status qemuback.service
          ● qemuback.service - qemuback daemon
             Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/qemuback.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
            Drop-In: /etc/systemd/system/qemuback.service.d
                     └─slice.conf
             Active: active (running) since Sat 2019-10-05 13:34:59 IST; 5s ago
           Main PID: 10221 (qemuback.py)
             CGroup: /control.slice/qemuback.service
                     β”œβ”€10221 /usr/bin/python /usr/bin/qemuback.py
                     └─10222 /usr/bin/xenstore-watch /local/domain/0/backend
          
          [13:35 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# xe sr-create type=filebased name-label=sr-test2 device-config:file-uri=/root/sr-folder
          c6e9c83c-78ee-7727-dec3-1c7474aef533
          [13:36 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# ls sr-folder/
          1  db_backups  lock_db  lock_db_backup  lock_gl  meta.json  meta.lock  sqlite3-metadata.db
          [13:37 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# xe vbd-create vdi-uuid=cb6cf26c-b079-44e2-9466-3d61fc7ac553 vm-uuid=a00c837e-20ab-4b3b-b125-2a73df1070d2 device=5
          6877ea3b-d3c7-e708-5b34-c5e61e5dd1eb
          [13:37 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# xe vbd-plug uuid=6877ea3b-d3c7-e708-5b34-c5e61e5dd1eb 
          Error code: MISSING_URI
          Error parameters: Please include a URI in the device-config
          
          
          FYI
          [13:38 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# xe vdi-list uuid=cb6cf26c-b079-44e2-9466-3d61fc7ac553 
          uuid ( RO)                : cb6cf26c-b079-44e2-9466-3d61fc7ac553
                    name-label ( RW): New virtual disk (1)
              name-description ( RW): 
                       sr-uuid ( RO): c6e9c83c-78ee-7727-dec3-1c7474aef533
                  virtual-size ( RO): 1073741824
                      sharable ( RO): false
                     read-only ( RO): false
          

          What can be done for Error code: MISSING_URI?

          Edit: I did not read the restart instruction.

          After restarting tool stack it worked and disk attached as /dev/nbd0!

          [13:55 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# xe-toolstack-restart 
          Executing xe-toolstack-restart
          done.
          [13:56 xcp-ng-8-kernel ~]# xe vbd-plug uuid=6877ea3b-d3c7-e708-5b34-c5e61e5dd1eb
           
          
          Marc.pezinM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • Marc.pezinM Offline
            Marc.pezin Vates πŸͺ Marketing @r1
            last edited by

            @r1 You are absolutely right, I have updated the command in the initial post and in the devblog. Thanks.

            R 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • R Offline
              r1 XCP-ng Team @Marc.pezin
              last edited by

              @Marc-pezin Thanks. I'd suggest to also add # xe-toolstack-restart so that Error code: MISSING_URI does not show up πŸ‘

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • R Offline
                r1 XCP-ng Team
                last edited by

                @ronan-a is VDI move from SMAPIv1 to SMAPIv3 supported?

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

                  Nope. I don't know if it's even planned by Citrix.

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

                    @olivierlambert said in SMAPIv3 - Feedback & Bug reports:

                    raw means any "whole" block device, meaning no snapshot, clone, no shared SR case, etc. Doesn't matter what's underneath. I would say the first use case is passing a whole drive to a VM (eg FreeNAS).

                    But yeah, you would be able to pass a LUN if you like πŸ™‚

                    Sounds a bit like VVOLs from VMware. Not sure how exactly they work but LUNs exclusively for VMs could be an easy thing, regarding TRIM/DISCARD etc.

                    It just still needs mechanics for XAPI etc. to grab/backup them. Also Snapshots could be done with that, just a different logic.

                    But first it's probably a target for people needing pure performance.

                    @olivierlambert said in SMAPIv3 - Feedback & Bug reports:

                    Nope. I don't know if it's even planned by Citrix.

                    Noone noes if Citrix has plans at all - not even paying customers. Their communication is kind of a nightmare.

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

                      Eager to see CH 8.1 and what they did to improve their driver to support storage live migration πŸ™‚

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

                        @olivierlambert said in SMAPIv3 - Feedback & Bug reports:

                        Eager to see CH 8.1 and what they did to improve their driver to support storage live migration πŸ™‚

                        Any idea about the release date? I mean their "one release a quater" only worked for very short and they failed again with 8.1, which should have been released until 1st of October.

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

                          I think we can reasonably imagine for the end of the year or so πŸ™‚

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

                            Then 8.1 should be the new LTSR. I'd appreciate that. Will XCP-ng follow that concept?

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

                              Why do you think it will be the next LTSR?

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

                                IIRC they said this year should bring another LTSR - as the old one becomes quite old now. The last chance would be a release in Q4 - that would also fit for 7.1 LTSR -> 8.1 LTSR (basically making 8.0 evolutions mature/tested)

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

                                  Do you remember where you read this?

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

                                    @olivierlambert

                                    Citrix, have recently announced via blog post that the next reported XenApp/XenDesktop LTSR release is due end Q4 2019 so its possible CH8.1 might show up at the same time.

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

                                      Damn I probably missed that post, can you put the URL here please?

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

                                        They removed the Hypervisor tag from their blog, so finding that posts isn't easy anmore and CH/XS posts get lost in stuff I don't care about.

                                        Looks a bit like they only want to keep it because VMware Horizon becomes more attractive, if Citrix doesn't bring it's own HV for XenApp/XenDesktop for free.

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

                                          Citrix want to keep their HV/platform because they don't want to rely only on competitors to run XenApp/XenDesktop. It's just not a "product" but a technical part of their solution.

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

                                            I can't find anything on this blog πŸ˜•

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