XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    XenServer 8.0 - Major update due Q1 2019

    Development
    18
    89
    22363
    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.
    • olivierlambertO
      olivierlambert Vates ๐Ÿช Co-Founder๐Ÿฆธ CEO ๐Ÿง‘โ€๐Ÿ’ผ
      last edited by

      https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/1251/citrix-hypervisor-8-0-landed

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • G
        gangsterrapper22
        last edited by

        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.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • olivierlambertO
          olivierlambert Vates ๐Ÿช Co-Founder๐Ÿฆธ CEO ๐Ÿง‘โ€๐Ÿ’ผ
          last edited by

          Feel free to share your modifications ๐Ÿ™‚

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • G
            gangsterrapper22
            last edited by gangsterrapper22

            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. ๐Ÿ™‚
            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.

            stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
            • akurzawaA
              akurzawa
              last edited by

              https://www.citrix.com/blogs/2019/04/25/citrix-hypervisor-8-0-is-here/

              7ba0996f-eaca-4cfa-8a5c-bcae9989d753-image.png

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C
                cg
                last edited by

                @akurzawa: What do you want to say?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • akurzawaA
                  akurzawa
                  last edited by

                  Just wondering strongly if xcp-ng will support disks bigger than 2TBs

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • olivierlambertO
                    olivierlambert Vates ๐Ÿช Co-Founder๐Ÿฆธ CEO ๐Ÿง‘โ€๐Ÿ’ผ
                    last edited by

                    I think there is a lot of conversations around this forum about this ๐Ÿ™‚ SMAPIv3 is able to use qcow2 instead 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 ๐Ÿ™‚

                    C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • C
                      cg @olivierlambert
                      last edited by

                      @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 ๐Ÿ™‚

                      We all wait for updates ๐Ÿ˜œ

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stormiS
                        stormi Vates ๐Ÿช XCP-ng Team ๐Ÿš€ @gangsterrapper22
                        last edited by

                        @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.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • D
                          dkleva
                          last edited by

                          Still max 32 vcpu limit per VM. This is too litle!

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • olivierlambertO
                            olivierlambert Vates ๐Ÿช Co-Founder๐Ÿฆธ CEO ๐Ÿง‘โ€๐Ÿ’ผ
                            last edited by olivierlambert

                            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

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • C
                              cg
                              last edited by cg

                              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.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • ruskofdR
                                ruskofd
                                last edited by

                                Absolutely @cg ๐Ÿ‘

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • olivierlambertO
                                  olivierlambert Vates ๐Ÿช Co-Founder๐Ÿฆธ CEO ๐Ÿง‘โ€๐Ÿ’ผ
                                  last edited by

                                  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.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • A
                                    AllooTikeeChaat
                                    last edited by

                                    @ 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?

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • C
                                      cg
                                      last edited by

                                      How about doing your own matrix?

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