XenServer 8.0 - Major update due Q1 2019


  • XCP-ng Team

    If I remember correctly what I read, I think Windows guests see all the memory (static max or dynamic max, I don't remember) but there's a special device that "eats" the memory that is not available to the VM, so that what's really available to it corresponds to the dynamic value (between dynamic min and dynamic max).


  • Admin

    It's dynamic max. But I'm pretty sure it was heavily changed in 7.2



  • @stormi It has always been the way that the daemon of xentools bloated up, when you need to free up dynamic memory within the range. I just have 7.1 LTSR running, can't verify for any CR, right now.



  • @olivierlambert I Did a test with the XS 7.6 and CentOS7 (HVM) and the memory calculation does not work correctly.

    Sometimes it decreases the memory in the Guest VM, but never displays the values correctly. I am reinstalling the Host for XCP 7.6 and perform new tests. I'll open a new thread for that matter.


  • Admin

    Behavior should be the same in XS and XCP-ng 7.6

    If you have lower than dyn max in your VM, it's due to pressure of other VMs on the host. Also during a live migration, Xen will "deflate" the VM to dynamic min to allow faster migration.



  • Did anyone notice, that Citrix not only sucks with improvments for (non VDI) server admins, but also doesn't keep their promised releasedates? ๐Ÿ˜‰
    Q1 is gone for some days and still no updates...
    In fall our support contract ends, I'm following xcp-ngs roadmap and changes quite intense...


  • XCP-ng Team

    Well, in software development I prefer slipping release dates over broken software, so I won't throw the stone here ๐Ÿ™‚



  • @stormi said in XenServer 8.0 - Major update due Q1 2019:

    Well, in software development I prefer slipping release dates over broken software, so I won't throw the stone here ๐Ÿ™‚

    I could say: They had 3 months to geht their job done. ๐Ÿ˜‰


  • XCP-ng Team

    @cg 3 months is short.





  • And we continue without any news ...


  • Admin

    Yep, it seems they have some troubles internally to make it real. Hopefully, we'll have something soon. And yes, we agree that their (lack of) communication is disastrous.



  • This is typical Citrix... XS isn't really a priority over there and havent been for many years.


  • Admin

    Yeah but PMs could at least tweet to give news ๐Ÿ˜•



  • Exactly this. Not giving - especially paying customers - any feedback/info is just the worst way to do your business.



  • @cg It has long ago become apparent to us at work, as long-time paying customers of Citrix, that they have little interest and long-term motivation towards XenServer\Citrix Hypervisor, much less a number of their other products, despite the way they brag about them in relation to other industry solutions. They seem more focused on squeezing as much money out of existing customers than actually providing, and then walking, any seemingly beneficial road map for the future that consists of real growth, new ideas and concepts, and expanding beyond "what they already know" to provide new and existing customers with improved solutions.



  • Should XCP-ng aim to be upstream? Like Debian/Fedora, XCP-ng maintains an unstable/cutting-edge branch that directly follow each XCP package?


  • Admin

    @jcpt928 said in XenServer 8.0 - Major update due Q1 2019:

    @cg It has long ago become apparent to us at work, as long-time paying customers of Citrix, that they have little interest and long-term motivation towards XenServer\Citrix Hypervisor, much less a number of their other products, despite the way they brag about them in relation to other industry solutions. They seem more focused on squeezing as much money out of existing customers than actually providing, and then walking, any seemingly beneficial road map for the future that consists of real growth, new ideas and concepts, and expanding beyond "what they already know" to provide new and existing customers with improved solutions.

    I'd like to quote this post because this was also one of the fork reason. I mean, even from a business perspective for Vates, it made sense to deliver innovation and a good service, which both aren't provided anymore for server virtualization at Citrix. Obviously, we are not that big, but unlike them, we are really open from the start (cultural difference) and also not being pushed by big pension funds (remember that squeezing the money starts at this level first). I still have in mind those big funds who pushed out the historical CEO, Mark Templeton. Which was the guy with the vision ๐Ÿ˜ž (note: he's now CEO ofโ€ฆ Digital Ocean!)


  • Admin

    @cheese said in XenServer 8.0 - Major update due Q1 2019:

    Should XCP-ng aim to be upstream? Like Debian/Fedora, XCP-ng maintains an unstable/cutting-edge branch that directly follow each XCP package?

    I'm not sure to understand what you mean by that, can you explain further or rephrase?



  • @olivierlambert Sorry. Currently XenServer is the upstream of XCP-ng. And XCP-ng does not directly choose XCP package versions. XCP-ng will not make a new major release until XS released new version. How this can be improved? Can XCP-ng get rid of the XenServer stage? XenServer itself is composed from XCP packages or is a distribution of XCP. Can XCP-ng directly be based on XCP packages instead of XenServer? Or for comparing, should XCP-ng be the 'Fedora' of XCP instead of the 'CentOS' for XS?

    Of course, being 'Fedora' of XCP requires a huge work. And QA is a big problem.


Log in to reply
 

XCP-ng Pro Support