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.
    • stormiS
      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
        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
          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
            olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder🦸 CEO 🧑‍💼 @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 🪐 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
                  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 🪐 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
                            tuxen
                            last edited by

                            That's a question for the Citrix dev team 😉

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • olivierlambertO
                              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
                                tuxen
                                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
                                  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