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

    Accedentally set up a pool on an xcp-ng server

    Xen Orchestra
    7
    29
    3.9k
    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
      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
        olivierlambert Vates πŸͺ Co-Founder🦸 CEO πŸ§‘β€πŸ’Ό
        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
          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
            jensolsson.se
            last edited by

            Thanks for clarifying

            Jens

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • D
              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 πŸ™‚
              stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stormiS
                stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team πŸš€ @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
                  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 πŸ™‚

                  • 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
                    stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team πŸš€ @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
                      DannieRothmann @stormi
                      last edited by

                      @stormi
                      Standalone:
                      NoPool.PNG

                      Single server (New pool created):
                      OneServerInPool.PNG

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stormiS
                        stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team πŸš€
                        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 πŸ™‚

                        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
                          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"

                          πŸ™‚

                          olivierlambertO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • olivierlambertO
                            olivierlambert Vates πŸͺ Co-Founder🦸 CEO πŸ§‘β€πŸ’Ό
                            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
                              olivierlambert Vates πŸͺ Co-Founder🦸 CEO πŸ§‘β€πŸ’Ό @DannieRothmann
                              last edited by

                              @dannierothmann

                              J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • J
                                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
                                  stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team πŸš€ @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
                                  • J
                                    jensolsson.se @stormi
                                    last edited by

                                    @stormi Thanks, it was easily solved and now there is no extra step in XCP-ng center

                                    [16:57 xcp-ng-btdjnqqd ~]# xe pool-list
                                    uuid ( RO)                : 1f12bb2e-3138-36fd-bfc7-a572186271cf
                                              name-label ( RW): xcp-ng-3
                                        name-description ( RW): 
                                                  master ( RO): 08a4a440-3c00-4d5e-af8c-46dd412a32cc
                                              default-SR ( RW): e5b243b2-28ba-31e8-6c8c-c0ab5e9d1c23
                                    
                                    
                                    [16:57 xcp-ng-btdjnqqd ~]# xe pool-param-set
                                    Required parameter not found: uuid
                                    For usage run: 'xe help'
                                    [16:58 xcp-ng-btdjnqqd ~]# xe pool-param-set uuid=1f12bb2e-3138-36fd-bfc7-a572186271cf name-label=
                                    [16:58 xcp-ng-btdjnqqd ~]# xe pool-list
                                    uuid ( RO)                : 1f12bb2e-3138-36fd-bfc7-a572186271cf
                                              name-label ( RW): 
                                        name-description ( RW): 
                                                  master ( RO): 08a4a440-3c00-4d5e-af8c-46dd412a32cc
                                              default-SR ( RW): e5b243b2-28ba-31e8-6c8c-c0ab5e9d1c23
                                    
                                    
                                    [16:58 xcp-ng-btdjnqqd ~]# 
                                    
                                    

                                    I wonder why it has named itself xcp-ng-btdjnqqd when I set its name to xcp-ng-3. Everything in XCP-ng center and in XO sais xcp-ng-3 but not in the command prompt.

                                    D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • D
                                      DannieRothmann @jensolsson.se
                                      last edited by

                                      @jensolsson-se said in Accedentally set up a pool on an xcp-ng server:

                                      xcp-ng-btdjnqqd

                                      Is seems like the "name" xcp-ng-btdjnqqd is the autogenerated name suggested during installation.

                                      This becomes the "name" of the server, but there is also a "name-label", which is what you see in most places of both the XCP-ng center and XO.

                                      If you look in xsconsole, you will most likely see this "name" i the top right corner of the screen.

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

                                        When you change network settings it asks if you want to push the name set to DNS or XCP (can't remember they direction), anyway this is your host DNS, when you set the network management in xsconsole you can get it renamed and then match the XCP name.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • T
                                          tuxen
                                          last edited by

                                          Just FYI guys, XenCenter/XCP-ng Center have the menu option Pool > Make into standalone server. As pointed out by other members, every standalone host is in a pool, but that option reverts to an "implicit" one.

                                          Hope this helps.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • olivierlambertO
                                            olivierlambert Vates πŸͺ Co-Founder🦸 CEO πŸ§‘β€πŸ’Ό
                                            last edited by

                                            But why on earth doing that, the client is just lying to the user πŸ€” Eager to get rid of this forever.

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