Accedentally set up a pool on an xcp-ng server

olivierlambert

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).

churchers

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

jensolsson.se

Thanks for clarifying

Jens

DannieRothmann

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

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.

DannieRothmann

@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)

stormi

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

DannieRothmann

@stormi
Standalone:

Single server (New pool created):

stormi

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.

DannieRothmann

@stormi

I agree, confusing.

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

olivierlambert

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.

olivierlambert

@dannierothmann

jensolsson.se

@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

stormi

@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.

jensolsson.se

@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.

DannieRothmann

@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.

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.

tuxen

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.

olivierlambert

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

tuxen

That's a question for the Citrix dev team