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

    XenServer 8.0 - Major update due Q1 2019

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
    89 Posts 18 Posters 61.2k Views 5 Watching
    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.
    • G Offline
      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. 🙂
      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 Offline
        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 Offline
          cg
          last edited by

          @akurzawa: What do you want to say?

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

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

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • olivierlambertO Offline
              olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
              last edited by

              I think there is a lot of conversations around this forum about this 🙂 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 🙂

              C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C Offline
                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 🙂

                We all wait for updates 😜

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • stormiS Offline
                  stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @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 Offline
                    dkleva
                    last edited by

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

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • olivierlambertO Offline
                      olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                      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 Offline
                        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 Offline
                          ruskofd
                          last edited by

                          Absolutely @cg 👍

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • olivierlambertO Offline
                            olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                            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 Offline
                              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 Offline
                                cg
                                last edited by

                                How about doing your own matrix?

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