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

    XCP-ng 8.3 betas and RCs feedback πŸš€

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
    792 Posts 89 Posters 1.3m Views 69 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.
    • J Offline
      john.c @cunrun
      last edited by john.c

      @cunrun said in XCP-ng 8.3 beta πŸš€:

      @john-c Yeah, tried all of that. I get the same issue with older GPU's when vGPU'ing them. So I'm wondering if it's a setting on the Dell Server BIOS.

      Have you enabled SR-IOV in Integrated Devices on the Dell Server's BIOS?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • X Offline
        xerxist @stormi
        last edited by xerxist

        @stormi

        πŸ‘ŒπŸΌπŸ˜ƒπŸš€

        It seems it would fix my iGPU passthrough issue with the NUC13 πŸ™‚

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • X Offline
          xerxist @stormi
          last edited by

          @stormi

          Which kernel are you looking at since 4.19 will be EOL in 9 months?

          stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T Offline
            ThierryC01
            last edited by

            I applied the very last batch of XCP-ng 8.3 updates and after a smart reboot (which took forever to complete and did not resume all my VM automatically), I have lost my ISO storage: the folder "/ISO" has been deleted by the update and the fstab has been overwritten. This is becoming annoying, I never ever had to "repair" anything related to my storage in my 20 years of using Vmware Esx but this is already the second time I have to do it in my 2 years of using XCP-ng and the very first time an update deletes a mounting point. I understand 8.3 is still a beta, hence my feedback.

            Tristis OrisT stormiS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Tristis OrisT Offline
              Tristis Oris Top contributor @ThierryC01
              last edited by

              @ThierryC01 Why are you using fstab?

              T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • T Offline
                ThierryC01 @Tristis Oris
                last edited by ThierryC01

                @Tristis-Oris Well, this is how local disks are mounted right?

                Tristis OrisT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • Tristis OrisT Offline
                  Tristis Oris Top contributor @ThierryC01
                  last edited by

                  @ThierryC01 possible way, but not only one. It recomended to configure nothing at dom0.

                  literally created 2nd local storage with 1 click:

                  1e100978-4e3b-49ba-a3fa-1b98efafa53e-image.png

                  d165a412-7dc5-47a4-980f-bf211b4987b9-image.png

                  4d8a59ab-4074-4840-961f-41ccab62e8dc-image.png

                  T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • T Offline
                    ThierryC01 @Tristis Oris
                    last edited by

                    @Tristis-Oris Except that your method is to create the SR, mine already exists, is full of .iso files and could be wiped doing your method!!! The SR exists, I can see the list of files that should be there but it is marked as "disconnected".

                    Tristis OrisT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • Tristis OrisT Offline
                      Tristis Oris Top contributor @ThierryC01
                      last edited by

                      @ThierryC01 iso sr can be mounted same way without wipe. I admit some cases where fstab is required, but not for this.

                      T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • T Offline
                        ThierryC01 @Tristis Oris
                        last edited by

                        Capture d’écran 2024-03-11 aΜ€ 15.54.57.png

                        Yeah... point is, the mounting point has been deleted and the fstab overwritten during the updates... as I mentioned in my post above.

                        Tristis OrisT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • Tristis OrisT Offline
                          Tristis Oris Top contributor @ThierryC01
                          last edited by

                          @ThierryC01 well, such unpredictable thing shouldn't happens.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • stormiS Offline
                            stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team @ThierryC01
                            last edited by stormi

                            @ThierryC01 I don't see how an update could delete a /ISO folder on the system. An upgrade using the ISO, yes, because it actually reinstalls XCP-ng and migrates the configuration it knows about, but not a simple yum update. What happened exactly? How did you update?

                            T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • stormiS Offline
                              stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team
                              last edited by stormi

                              An update will not overwrite /etc/fstab either, or there's a serious packaging bug somewhere. I will do some tests.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • stormiS Offline
                                stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team
                                last edited by

                                @ThierryC01 Is there a /etc/fstab.orig file on your system? If yes, does it contain the missing line about the ISO? And what's the output of rpm -q setup?

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • T Offline
                                  ThierryC01 @stormi
                                  last edited by

                                  @stormi Now that you mention that, I did perform an ISO upgrade I should not have performed would I known. Remember a few posts above. 😐 My bad...

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • stormiS Offline
                                    stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team @xerxist
                                    last edited by

                                    @xerxist said in XCP-ng 8.3 beta πŸš€:

                                    Which kernel are you looking at since 4.19 will be EOL in 9 months?

                                    So, the main blocker in the way to upgrade the kernel is a kernel module we use for storage access from the VMs. Work is being done to replace it, which will unlock the possibility to move to a newer kernel. Which version exactly will be chosen in due time. Likely a LTS kernel.

                                    Meanwhile, XCP-ng 8.3 remains on 4.19, on which we'll continue to provide security fixes for vulnerabilities that may affect it in the context of dom0.

                                    X R 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • X Offline
                                      xerxist @stormi
                                      last edited by

                                      @stormi

                                      Thanks for the explanation.
                                      Will this be added like what there is now as an alternative kernel?

                                      stormiS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • stormiS Offline
                                        stormi Vates πŸͺ XCP-ng Team @xerxist
                                        last edited by

                                        @xerxist Possibly, but then only some storage drivers will work with it. This will mainly be for testing purposes and gathering feedback.

                                        X 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • X Offline
                                          xerxist @stormi
                                          last edited by xerxist

                                          @stormi

                                          Not to be negative but in a professional environment auditors will trip on this. No one wants to explain to auditors that its plastered from upstream somewhere. Also it’s good for new hardware support. But good to hear work is progress. πŸ‘πŸΌ

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote -1
                                          • G Offline
                                            gb.123
                                            last edited by gb.123

                                            USB Passthrough Testing & Feedback :

                                            Tested 2 Devices :-

                                            1. 16 GB USB Flash Drive - Transcend
                                              Results : Works Perfectly

                                            2. ePass2003 Token (for Digital Signatures)
                                              Results : Not Detected (See update)

                                            Deep Diving :
                                            lsusb & usb-devices commands list the device (vendor id - 096e) on console (cli). However, the device is not shown in the 'Advanced' tab of the node/host.

                                            Maybe devices getting filtered only for USB Media / Flash Drive in Xen Orchestra ?

                                            Update :
                                            Token also works now after editing : /etc/xensource/usb-policy.conf
                                            as enumerated here.

                                            Thanks to @olivierlambert for the above link and prompt guidance!

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post