SMAPIv3 - Feedback & Bug reports

cocoon

@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!

olivierlambert

I think, yes.

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
           ├─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.pezin

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

r1

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

r1

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

olivierlambert

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

cg

@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

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.

olivierlambert

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

cg

@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

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.

olivierlambert

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

cg

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

olivierlambert

Why do you think it will be the next LTSR?

cg

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)

olivierlambert

Do you remember where you read this?

AllooTikeeChaat

@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.

olivierlambert

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

cg

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.

olivierlambert

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.

olivierlambert

I can't find anything on this blog