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 @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