Accedentally set up a pool on an xcp-ng server
-
@dannierothmann About xsconsole (which is supported), where do you see a difference between "in a pool" and "not in a pool"?
-
@stormi
Standalone:
Single server (New pool created):
-
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.confcontainsmasterin both cases? That's what I see here. -
I agree, confusing.
- Would be easier the Starwars way:
"Always two, there are. No more. No less. A Master and a pool"
- Would be easier the Starwars way:
-
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 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
-
@jensolsson-se I'd try with
xe pool-param-set [...]. Find the appropriate param name withxe pool-param-list. Disclaimer: I did not check if it's possible. -
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But why on earth doing that, the client is just lying to the user
Eager to get rid of this forever. -
That's a question for the Citrix dev team
-
I think they assumed that their average user was not able to grasp the concept of a pool with a single host
-
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.
-
I agree but when it's not the truth "behind", I find it even more confusing.
