XCP-ng

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups

    XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!

    News
    16
    63
    7796
    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.
    • stormi
      stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team 🚀 last edited by

      So, the main remaining development before RC is an updated installer to allow it to boot the alternate kernel in cases where the main kernel has issues. And also an option to boot with only 2G of RAM to workaround Ryzen APU "black screen" issues.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • onur
        onur last edited by onur

        last week I installed a new server XCP-ng 8.1. But the filesystem is still Ext3. (by the way XO connects without problem but you need XCP-ng Center Development build to access)
        Today I will install a new server, what should I do to get ext4 in the filesystem?
        Thanks

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • olivierlambert
          olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder🦸 CEO 🧑‍💼 last edited by

          What do you mean? SR file system or root filesystem?

          onur 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • onur
            onur @olivierlambert last edited by

            @olivierlambert said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

            What do you mean? SR file system or root filesystem?

            The Local Storage for VM.
            ![alt text](Ek Açıklama 2020-02-28 124558.png image url)

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

              I don't think you should trust XCP-ng Center on this. What do you think @borzel?

              Check the output of mount instead.

              onur borzel 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • onur
                onur @stormi last edited by

                here is the output. So I assume ext4 should be default when selecting EXT on the setup.

                @stormi said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                I don't think you should trust XCP-ng Center on this. What do you think @borzel?

                Check the output of mount instead.

                 mount
                sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
                proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
                devtmpfs on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,size=1270132k,nr_inodes=317533,mode=755)
                securityfs on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
                tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev)
                devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000)
                tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,mode=755)
                tmpfs on /sys/fs/cgroup type tmpfs (ro,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=755)
                cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,xattr,release_agent=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-cgroups-agent,name=systemd)
                pstore on /sys/fs/pstore type pstore (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
                cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu,cpuacct type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpu,cpuacct)
                cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/memory type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,memory)
                cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/net_cls,net_prio type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,net_cls,net_prio)
                cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuset)
                cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,blkio)
                cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/devices type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,devices)
                cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/freezer type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,freezer)
                configfs on /sys/kernel/config type configfs (rw,relatime)
                
                /dev/sda1 on / type ext3 (rw,relatime)
                
                debugfs on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw,relatime)
                mqueue on /dev/mqueue type mqueue (rw,relatime)
                xenfs on /proc/xen type xenfs (rw,relatime)
                xenstore on /var/lib/xenstored type tmpfs (rw,relatime,mode=755)
                
                /dev/sda5 on /var/log type ext3 (rw,relatime)
                
                /dev/mapper/XSLocalEXT--3fe64d91--5349--ac86--d9b7--aa9dcf813cea-3fe64d91--5349--ac86--d9b7--aa9dcf813cea on /run/sr-mount/3fe64d91-5349-ac86-d9b7-aa9dcf813cea type ext4 (rw,relatime)
                
                tmpfs on /run/user/0 type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,size=256416k,mode=700)
                
                
                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • stormi
                  stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team 🚀 last edited by

                  @onur said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                  /dev/mapper/XSLocalEXT--3fe64d91--5349--ac86--d9b7--aa9dcf813cea-3fe64d91--5349--ac86--d9b7--aa9dcf813cea on /run/sr-mount/3fe64d91-5349-ac86-d9b7-aa9dcf813cea type ext4 (rw,relatime)

                  It's ok, the SR is mounted as ext4 so this means it was created as ext4.

                  onur 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • onur
                    onur @stormi last edited by

                    @stormi said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                    @onur said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                    /dev/mapper/XSLocalEXT--3fe64d91--5349--ac86--d9b7--aa9dcf813cea-3fe64d91--5349--ac86--d9b7--aa9dcf813cea on /run/sr-mount/3fe64d91-5349-ac86-d9b7-aa9dcf813cea type ext4 (rw,relatime)

                    It's ok, the SR is mounted as ext4 so this means it was created as ext4.

                    great thank you very much @stormi . As you suspected, XCP-ng Center shows wrong format (I guess here is a bug for XCP-ng center devs)

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

                      Please create an issue there: https://github.com/xcp-ng/xenadmin/issues

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • olivierlambert
                        olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder🦸 CEO 🧑‍💼 last edited by

                        What's the info reported by xe sr-param-list uuid=<UUID OF THIS SR>?

                        onur 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • onur
                          onur @olivierlambert last edited by

                          @olivierlambert said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                          What's the info reported by xe sr-param-list uuid=<UUID OF THIS SR>?

                          xe sr-param-list uuid=3fe64d91-5349-ac86-d9b7-aa9dcf813cea
                          uuid ( RO)                    : 3fe64d91-5349-ac86-d9b7-aa9dcf813cea
                                        name-label ( RW): ssd240Toshiba
                                  name-description ( RW):
                                              host ( RO): OB1
                                allowed-operations (SRO): VDI.enable_cbt; VDI.list_changed_blocks; unplug; plug; PBD.create; VDI.disable_cbt; update; PBD.destroy; VDI.resize; VDI.clone; VDI.data_destroy; scan; VDI.snapshot; VDI.mirror; VDI.create; VDI.destroy; VDI.set_on_boot
                                current-operations (SRO):
                                              VDIs (SRO): 5da0c967-657f-43f2-8e4a-7cb80b7938ef; 2dd44491-b458-4119-a024-a48ace2a23e3; 05910aa1-8c5e-4af7-8ffc-11dbdcae5116; 60a7602d-ec61-4ef4-9db1-0f3fdbcd43f9
                                              PBDs (SRO): 96e685a7-f5cc-32fa-8289-b10e4a8ea4f5
                                virtual-allocation ( RO): 481036337152
                              physical-utilisation ( RO): 153255415808
                                     physical-size ( RO): 192280748032
                                              type ( RO): ext
                                      content-type ( RO): user
                                            shared ( RW): false
                                     introduced-by ( RO): <not in database>
                                       is-tools-sr ( RO): false
                                      other-config (MRW): i18n-original-value-name_label: Local storage; i18n-key: local-storage
                                         sm-config (MRO): devserial: scsi-3500080dc0133cdc2
                                             blobs ( RO):
                               local-cache-enabled ( RO): true
                                              tags (SRW):
                                         clustered ( RO): false
                          
                          
                          stormi 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • stormi
                            stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team 🚀 @onur last edited by

                            @onur said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                            type ( RO): ext

                            As expected. The ext type has no information of the FS version in its name.

                            onur 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • onur
                              onur @stormi last edited by

                              @stormi said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                              @onur said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                              type ( RO): ext

                              As expected. The ext type has no information of the FS version in its name.
                              already created bug for XCP-ng center, but it looks like system is not reporting ext type

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • olivierlambert
                                olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder🦸 CEO 🧑‍💼 last edited by

                                Yes, it was just to be sure it's a XCP-ng Center issue 🙂 Now we are 100% sure.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • borzel
                                  borzel XCP-ng Center Team 🏚️ @stormi last edited by borzel

                                  @stormi said in XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!:

                                  I don't think you should trust XCP-ng Center on this. What do you think @borzel?

                                  Check the output of mount instead.

                                  I think we should not trust 🙂 I assume the ext4 uses internally the same xapi-ID like the old ext.

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

                                    A better label would just be "ext" so that it works both for ext3 and ext4.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • P
                                      pnunn last edited by

                                      Running two hosts on the beta in my lab and so far have had no issues at all (touch wood). Looking forward to this hitting production.

                                      P.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • olivierlambert
                                        olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder🦸 CEO 🧑‍💼 last edited by

                                        Thanks for the feedback!

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • C
                                          cnaumer last edited by

                                          Same here, a single host as well as two host pool are running fine so far. All upgraded via yum from 7.6.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • nikade
                                            nikade last edited by

                                            Did anyone try the performance of VM export/import yet?
                                            I am really excited to see the increase since this was one of the improvements mentioned by Citrix.

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