Xcp-ng 8.2 no more recognized with Cloudstack since last update

olivierlambert

Yes, it is. It's a patch version of 8.2

You should report that to CloudStack project

kurushi9000

I saw the problem was due to my yum update on my xcp-ng 8.2 cluster has changed the subversion of xcp-ng

It changed from 8.2.0 to 8.2.1
So the Cloudstack management server is updating his entries for my hosts saying it is version 8.2.1

The hypervisor capabilities in Cloudstack 4.16 says only xenserver 8.2.0 is recognized

I added hypervisor capabilities in Cloudstack like this :

#add hypervsisor xcp 8.2.1 to acs 4.16
INSERT IGNORE INTO cloud.hypervisor_capabilities(uuid, hypervisor_type,
hypervisor_version, max_guests_limit, max_data_volumes_limit,
max_hosts_per_cluster, storage_motion_supported) values (UUID(), 'XenServer',
'8.2.1', 1000, 253, 64, 1);

+-- Copy XenServer 8.2.0 hypervisor guest OS mappings to XenServer 8.2.1
+INSERT IGNORE INTO cloud.guest_os_hypervisor (uuid,hypervisor_type,
hypervisor_version, guest_os_name, guest_os_id, created, is_user_defined)
SELECT UUID(),'Xenserver', '8.2.1', guest_os_name, guest_os_id,
utc_timestamp(), 0 FROM cloud.guest_os_hypervisor WHERE
hypervisor_type='Xenserver' AND hypervisor_version='8.2.0';

This is now working for me

Could you confirm me from your side that between xcp-ng 8.2.0 and xcp-ng 8.2.1 there is no changes with :

Xapi
Live storage migration stuff
Live migration (just instance no storage moving
Snapshots

Thanks a lot for your help @olivierlambert

Best Regards

olivierlambert

No change, it's a patch version, as the semantic number says

AlexanderK

@kurushi9000 you have added this into database cloud i suppose?
will report to cloudstack team.

kurushi9000

@AlexanderK Yes i added these sql into the Cloudstack cloud database

I also saw that Debian 11 vm already present on xcp-ng 8.2.0 were working no more

I added so these two lines in order to map Debian 11 from xcp-ng 8.2.1 with "Debian GNU/Linux 11" of Cloudstack :

INSERT INTO guest_os_hypervisor (id, hypervisor_type, guest_os_name, guest_os_id, hypervisor_version, uuid, created, removed, is_user_defined) VALUES (8227, 'Xenserver', 'Debian Bullseye 11', 337, '8.2.1', '35b0f2f7-ca33-11ec-85d0-96264736f9a1', '2022-05-03 12:08:36', NULL, 0);
INSERT INTO guest_os_hypervisor (id, hypervisor_type, guest_os_name, guest_os_id, hypervisor_version, uuid, created, removed, is_user_defined) VALUES (8231, 'Xenserver', 'Debian Bullseye 11', 338, '8.2.1', '35b0f3b0-ca33-11ec-85d0-96264736f9a1', '2022-05-03 12:11:26', NULL, 0);

Regards, Benoit

kurushi9000

I tested a set of features after modyfing so the Cloudstack databases entries :

test export vm OK
test import vm OK

test migration XenMotion live OK
test migration XenStorageMotion live OK

test snapshot OK
test snapshot vm OK (was bugging before patching guest os mapping)

test revert snapshot OK
test revert snapshot vm OK

This has been tested on Centos, Debian 10 and Debian 11 vms

AlexanderK

So happy for what happened at github

olivierlambert

This is exactly why we love Open Source

kurushi9000

Thanks guys for your intervention in github
@stormi , it could be possible to have major security issues causing disruptives upgrade of some components in future.

I would like to benefit nevertheless of updates without taking risk of changing to a specific version causing incompatibilities with CS per example.

This time, I used a yum update after seeing your warn issue about memory loss (ixgbe)

Is there a way to have something like XS82xxx.update hotfix file to execute as it was with Citrix Xenserver ?
This permit to update to a specific version of Hypervisor (very useful in production)

Have a Nice Week-end

Benoit

kurushi9000

@olivierlambert me too

stormi

@kurushi9000 I wasn't aware cloudstack would take the minor version number into account and suddently stop working.

It's not planned to provide updates cherry-picking like Citrix does. It's a logistical nightmare, would require specific yum repositories for each updates. So instead we provide a large testing period (several weeks) before bigger updates to let you test them and report if anything goes wrong. It would be good to have cloustack users take part in the testing, and even contribute changes to cloudstack before the release so that they are made compatible in time.

Note that XCP-ng 8.2.1 was not made incompatible in any way with cloudstack. It's cloudstack that considered it was a version it doesn't know, but it was technically fully compatible. Not major change on our side.

If any major change must happen in the future, we'll warn in the release notes. It won't happen if we can avoid it, by the way. However, if cloudstack solely depends on the XAPI API, then there's no reason a future update to XCP-ng 8.2 LTS would break compatibility. We don't change the API in maintenance updates. What does cloudstack depend on in XCP-ng exactly?

We'll also try to anticipate compatibility issues, but we don't manage external projects. That's why, in the context of the open source development process that is XCP-ng's, I strongly advise users of anything that plugs into XCP-ng to take part in pre-release testing.

AlexanderK

i am happy that found another user who uses xcp-ng with cloudstack @kurushi9000
@stormi i am using cloudstack and xcp-ng as hypervisor for almost 2 years.
lately i have tried terraform with cloudstack and the results were really amazing.
Possible to build many labs in different networks for testing in minutes.
by the way @kurushi9000 have you tried cs 4.17.0.0 rc2?
I will try it, hope today, at my virtual testbed.

lknite

@AlexanderK hello fellow user of cloudstack, did you find that you had to enable bridge mode on your xcp-ng servers to get cloudstack to work with them?

AlexanderK

@lknite what do you mean?

dingo

@stormi so i got my XCP-NG on CS 4.19 following your direction, its a fresh install of both, however i seem to be missing something, there are no templates showing to boot anything in the way of compute, i thought it would pull the XCP templates, but it seems not, how to proceed? do i need to upload isos to xcp-ng for them to appear in cs ??

olivierlambert

@dingo you should ask CloudStack, because I think it's more related to "how to use CloudStack" than XCP-ng. I did a quick search there's https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Community and https://github.com/apache/cloudstack

If you can't find a simple way to ask, just contact me, I know some CloudStack dev that might help you with your question

dingo

@olivierlambert seems to me that youve moved away from CS a bit, it used to be quite a nice combination years back, though now probably a different story. easily with the XOA lite on 8.3 itll most likely break any integrations, gotta say kudos for xcp-ng great work, sad that the xoa pricing model is so steep, so it forces me to use something like CS just based on costs, and the latest XOA, seems templates and ssh-keys, appear a bit disfunnctional, as well as deploying k8s, all the more reasons im forced to use CS. great work on xcp-ng as i said, bus XOA needs to die or be cost effective and functional

olivierlambert

seems to me that youve moved away from CS a bit

What? We always worked with CS devs when they needed info on XCP-ng. I never used CloudStack myself, so I can't answer a specific CloudStack question, why would you would think "we moved away"?

it forces me to use something like CS just based on costs

What x2? Why not using XO from the sources? It's 100% free. Also, we have a new pricing model that is even cheaper including everything.

seems templates and ssh-keys, appear a bit disfunnctional, as well as deploying k8s

Can you be more specific? We have many users relying on it and I'm not aware of current issues at the moment?

bus XOA needs to die or be cost effective and functional

That's nice of you

dingo

@olivierlambert said in Xcp-ng 8.2 no more recognized with Cloudstack since last update:

seems to me that youve moved away from CS a bit

What? We always worked with CS devs when they needed info on XCP-ng. I never used CloudStack myself, so I can't answer a specific CloudStack question, why would you would think "we moved away"?

ill review the new pricing, but xcp-ng / cloud stack documentation is quite lacking. it used to be pretty much plug and play back in the day

it forces me to use something like CS just based on costs

What x2? Why not using XO from the sources? It's 100% free. Also, we have a new pricing model that is even cheaper including everything.

for the lazy XOA dfrom sources doesnt have alot of the features needed, like deploying K8s clusters, or templates and thats just an example

seems templates and ssh-keys, appear a bit disfunnctional, as well as deploying k8s

Can you be more specific? We have many users relying on it and I'm not aware of current issues at the moment?

i installed a fresh 8.3 the other day and got XOA on it, tried to deploy a k8s cluster, it failed. only deployed a master did nothing else, second to this i added a ssh-key to debian and installed from a template, could not login to debian, it did seem to work on almaLinux just fine

bus XOA needs to die or be cost effective and functional

That's nice of you

Yupp, thats me being frustrated.. trying to get something to work so i can move forward.

olivierlambert

ill review the new pricing, but xcp-ng / cloud stack documentation is quite lacking. it used to be pretty much plug and play back in the day

It should be plug and play, but as I said, we always been very friendly with CS devs and we even participated to a CS event in last November. If the integration is less good nowadays, you should tell CS people, because our API is stable since it exists. We can't be blamed if it works less well (if it's even confirmed) because that's not on us

for the lazy XOA dfrom sources doesnt have alot of the features needed, like deploying K8s clusters, or templates and thats just an example

So you want turnkey and cheap/free

i installed a fresh 8.3 the other day and got XOA on it, tried to deploy a k8s cluster, it failed. only deployed a master did nothing else, second to this i added a ssh-key to debian and installed from a template, could not login to debian, it did seem to work on almaLinux just fine

If it fails and you don't report it (or nobody does), I don't see how we could help

Yupp, thats me being frustrated.. trying to get something to work so i can move forward.

Please try to be nice, because even if you are frustrated, being not nice won't help to get assistance for free on a community forum