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

    XCP-ng 8.1.0 beta now available!

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
    63 Posts 16 Posters 33.5k Views 9 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.
    • onurO Offline
      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
      • stormiS Offline
        stormi Vates πŸͺ 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
        • olivierlambertO Offline
          olivierlambert Vates πŸͺ Co-Founder CEO
          last edited by

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

          onurO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • onurO Offline
            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
            
            
            stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stormiS Offline
              stormi Vates πŸͺ 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.

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

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

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • borzelB Offline
                    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 πŸ™‚ I assume the ext4 uses internally the same xapi-ID like the old ext.

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

                          Thanks for the feedback!

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • C Offline
                            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
                            • nikadeN Offline
                              nikade Top contributor
                              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
                              • P Offline
                                pnunn
                                last edited by

                                I've not imported full VM's but have imported a number of disks and they worked reasonably quickly I guess, although I have only very limited reference from another much more powerful setup to compare with.

                                Peter.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • stormiS Offline
                                  stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team
                                  last edited by

                                  This thread is now dead, long live the 8.1 RC thread!

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