XenServer 8.0 - Major update due Q1 2019
-
I will add that I use XCP-ng at home; but, also in an enterprise virtual environment (without professional support right now, as we don't need it for Xen). We also use the Enterprise XOA, and have even had great success with Backup-ng for specific VMs we can't backup with other solutions. My qualm is that I could absolutely use some of those Enterprise features at home; but, alas, the licensing is WAY beyond my personal budget. The subscription model is the only way to go in this industry, or the very similar perpetual license with a yearly support subscription (neither all that different from each other from a cost perspective) - you can't maintain a team and ongoing development with "one time fees" (look how this has actually harmed Plex due to way too many lifetime passes being sold).
That said, the reliability and stability of the XCP-ng\XOA solutions across the board is at least equivalent to native Xenserver (which isn't necessarily an insult or a compliment - any of us who have used XenServer long enough know that it can be incredibly easy and downright simple to manage, or it can turn into an absolute disaster real quick). We also run native XenServer, and some VMware and Hyper-V in our environment.
Do I have ideas of where I'd like to see XCP-ng go? Absolutely. I don't think it's time for me to be pushing those while the team fleshes out the product per their initial goals and desires, however. Do I have extremely diverse experience that could be invaluable to the team in developing new features and capabilities? I'm sure; but, I'm not a developer, I'm an administrator\engineer. I understand coding, and can often talk the talk; but, it's not my cup of tea, for sure - I'm not sure I'd know where to start to assist those endeavors beyond asking actually questions.
I do hope that the XCP team's recent progress towards becoming an independent product is a success - sooner rather than later. They already have some big companies betting on them. I could go on for quite a while on subjects like this - if XCP-ng has an open position that pays roughly $100K/year for someone in the top 5% of skill and talent in the global IT\IS field, let me know.
-
@jcpt928 if you can bring support contract for at least 170 XCP-ng "standard" hosts per year, then your cover our expenses to pay you
-
-
I have installed the Citrix Hyperivsor 8 and recompiled your xcp-featured Package and modified it a little bit for the new Features like UEFI Secureboot. It seems to be working so far. I just use this for my Homelab.
-
Feel free to share your modifications
-
I have removed the Feature Restricton of Corosync, that it is also available, because it is availbale in the Citrix Hypervisor 8, but I think you aren't allow to distribute this Feature, as it isn't Open Source. I wanted to test the GFS2 Feature.
I have added Corosync in additional_feature and in keys_of_additional_features the same I also did for the UEFI Secureboot.
I added it in additional_feature with the Name "GuefiSecureBoot" and in "keys_of_additional_features" with "GuefiSecureBoot, (Negative, "restrict_guefi-secureboot");"I hope it is clear what I did.
I forgot to save the patch File otherwise I could send it to you. The Compilation of the Package was done with your xcp-ng-build-env. -
-
@akurzawa: What do you want to say?
-
Just wondering strongly if xcp-ng will support disks bigger than 2TBs
-
I think there is a lot of conversations around this forum about this
SMAPIv3 is able to use qcow2instead of VHD, allowing to get rid of the 2TiB limit.However, SMAPIv3 is far from being production ready now. See the dev diary in News section
-
@olivierlambert said in XenServer 8.0 - Major update due Q1 2019:
However, SMAPIv3 is far from being production ready now. See the dev diary in News section
We all wait for updates
-
@gangsterrapper22 Thanks. The reason why we restrict corosync in the license daemon is to avoid XCP-ng Center advertise it as available when it isn't.
-
Still max 32 vcpu limit per VM. This is too litle!
-
This is not a real limit: we even unlocked this artificial limit in Xen Orchestra.
It's 128 in HVM guest, see https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Release_Features
-
You should consider, that efficiency of vCPUs goes down by each one you add. I don't have the link to that Citrix document handy, so you need to google that.
If you really need that many cores, you should consider a physical machine, which should make a serious bump in performance.
AFAIR it was the overhead of the Xen scheduler, which needs to balance the needs of your VM. The more vCPUs one VM has, the bigger the overhead. I'm sure it didn't change in more recent versions. -
Absolutely @cg
-
Well, it's not entirely true. You can do vCPU pinning if you want to avoid any bad placement on very large core setup, so Xen cost will be virtually non-existent. This is working well.
The main reason for Citrix to limit vCPU number is for support reasons: there is some odd combination possible in some case on some hardware.
-
@ Oli and the XCP-NG team ..
Will the Westmere EP (aka X5xx series etc) Xeons be supported by XCP-NG 8.0 as the XS HCL no longer lists them as a supported CPU?
-
How about doing your own matrix?
