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.
    • 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 Offline
                  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 Offline
                    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
                        • J Offline
                          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 Offline
                            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 Offline
                              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 Offline
                                tuxen Top contributor
                                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 Offline
                                  olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                  last edited by

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

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

                                    That's a question for the Citrix dev team 😉

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

                                      I think they assumed that their average user was not able to grasp the concept of a pool with a single host 🤔

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

                                        It could be. For an user point of view, a single host pool wouldn't make any sense, so they created the "implicit/explicit" concept and treated everything as a pool internally.

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

                                          I agree but when it's not the truth "behind", I find it even more confusing.

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