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

    Accedentally set up a pool on an xcp-ng server

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Xen Orchestra
    29 Posts 7 Posters 12.8k Views 3 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.
    • J Offline
      jensolsson.se
      last edited by

      Hi

      I accidentally set up a pool on one of my xcp-ng servers. Dont know how, maybe there is a question during installation? The pool is named the same as the host.

      I have no use for pools so I would actually like to remove it, but since I added a VM to the pool I am affraid if I remove the pool, I will also lose the VM.

      Is there any way to keep the VM while removing the pool?

      Kind regards
      Jens

      DanpD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DanpD Online
        Danp Pro Support Team @jensolsson.se
        last edited by

        @jensolsson-se You didn't do anything wrong. Every server is in a pool, even a lone server.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • olivierlambertO Online
          olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
          last edited by

          As Danp said, there's always a pool. A "lone host" doesn't exist.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J Offline
            jensolsson.se
            last edited by

            OK, makes total sense, I think what confuses me is actually in XCP-ng center where it seem like an extra subtree for the server I installed. to me it seems something is very different with that host.
            Please see the screenshot. Why is it xcp-ng-3 -> xcp-ng-3 -> XOA
            Whereas I have for example xcp-ng-1 -> XOA and xcp-ng-2 -> XOA ?

            Kind regards
            Jens

            34402832-3074-4bdc-9604-d986402f8a6f-image.png

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • olivierlambertO Online
              olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
              last edited by

              That's exactly the problem of XCP-ng Center: it's confusing. That's also the reason we really want people to dump it 😉 (see https://xcp-ng.org/docs/management.html it's only community maintained)

              J C 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • J Offline
                jensolsson.se @olivierlambert
                last edited by

                olivierlambert OK oliver, I pretty much only use XO. But it happens that I log on using XCP-ng Center from time to time, mainly if I want to see if there is some feature that is not in XO.

                So you are saying I can pretty much ignore this unusual look of my xcp-ng-3 server?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • olivierlambertO Online
                  olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                  last edited by

                  It's fine. The only confusing thing is coming from XCP-ng Center. You can rename the pool if you like (regardless where, could be done in XCP-ng Center or XO, or even xe).

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

                    olivierlambert
                    Oh no, I really like it coming from XEN.
                    it should always be there....

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • J Offline
                      jensolsson.se
                      last edited by

                      Thanks for clarifying

                      Jens

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • D Offline
                        DannieRothmann
                        last edited by

                        Just for absolute clarification:

                        • When a server is added in XCP-ng Center or Citrix XenCenter, it IS stand alone, we have many of these in production - not a problem.
                        • You have to create a pool or add it to an existing pool, to make it a member, so the xcp-.ng-3 is no longer a stand alone server, it is the master of a pool called xcp-ng-3 - not a problem.
                        • To remove it from the pool again - BIG problem, because you can not remove the master from a pool. You can destroy the pool by "hacking" and you will loose all VM's on local storage ! - BAD IDEA
                        • Leaving it as is looks a little strange, but has absolutely NO impact on the servers functionallity or reliabillity.
                        • So either "backup VM, reinstall server, do not create a pool and restore vm" OR Just live with it as is 🙂
                        stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • stormiS Offline
                          stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @DannieRothmann
                          last edited by stormi

                          DannieRothmann This is not entirely accurate. As we said earlier, any host, right from the start, is always included in a pool of its own. Just run xe pool-list on it and you'll see. But XCP-ng Center apparently hides this fact so that you'd see it as a standalone host, unless you tell it "I want a pool".

                          You could check in XO, which reflects the exact state of things in the XAPI database: any host belongs to a pool. Always.

                          D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • D Offline
                            DannieRothmann @stormi
                            last edited by

                            stormi
                            Ok, I stand corrected, but then its not only a XCP/Xencenter issue. xsconsole also clearly differentiates between being member of a pool or not ? I know that there is always a "master", but either of a stand alone server or of a pool.

                            I actually think that this is one of these situations that totally frustrates a trainer, where what the trainer see in all official training materials (Citrix) and what you actually see in the source code.

                            stormi you know the code far better than me, so when you say it 🙂

                            • I will rephrase:
                              Even though it looks like there is a difference in both XCP/Xencenter and xsconsole, there is actually no difference in the actual system behind the interfaces.
                            • As long as you work with XCP/XS consoles, my previous comment is what you see and experience when using these unsupported tools !
                            • If you use the servers for production, there is only ONE tool you can rely on .... Xen Orchestra .... (and the support is outstanding)
                            stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • stormiS Offline
                              stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @DannieRothmann
                              last edited by

                              DannieRothmann About xsconsole (which is supported), where do you see a difference between "in a pool" and "not in a pool"?

                              D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • D Offline
                                DannieRothmann @stormi
                                last edited by

                                stormi
                                Standalone:
                                NoPool.PNG

                                Single server (New pool created):
                                OneServerInPool.PNG

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

                                  Thanks. So there must be a difference somewhere in database or on the host itself. I suspect the only goal behind this was to make believe the host isn't in a pool in order to not confuse users who'd expect that no pool exists when there's only one host... And the result is it's still confusing because now we can have two different setups that are completely identical except that one claims there's no pool and the other says there is 🙂

                                  I suppose /etc/xensource/pool.conf contains master in both cases? That's what I see here.

                                  D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • D Offline
                                    DannieRothmann @stormi
                                    last edited by

                                    stormi

                                    I agree, confusing.

                                    • Would be easier the Starwars way:
                                      "Always two, there are. No more. No less. A Master and a pool"

                                    🙂

                                    olivierlambertO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • olivierlambertO Online
                                      olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                      last edited by

                                      There's no diff. It's just that if you pool doesn't have a namelabel, XenCenter and xsconsole will detect that and tell you it's not in a pool. It's just a plain lie.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • olivierlambertO Online
                                        olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO @DannieRothmann
                                        last edited by

                                        DannieRothmann

                                        J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • J Offline
                                          jensolsson.se @olivierlambert
                                          last edited by

                                          olivierlambert Interesting is it possible to simply remove the namelabel. I know it does not matter but I think it is nice to do the same on all hosts

                                          stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • stormiS Offline
                                            stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @jensolsson.se
                                            last edited by

                                            @jensolsson-se I'd try with xe pool-param-set [...]. Find the appropriate param name with xe pool-param-list. Disclaimer: I did not check if it's possible.

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