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

    XCP-ng 8.3 betas and RCs feedback 🚀

    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.
    • M Offline
      moussa854 @stormi
      last edited by moussa854

      xe vtpm-create vm-uuid=UUID_OF_YOUR_VM
      

      was enough to enable the vTPM in my case. Thank you so much.

      15e98721-1da8-4a90-aa34-73d2d29949cd-image.png

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • R Offline
        rRobbie @olivierlambert
        last edited by

        This post is deleted!
        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • R Offline
          rRobbie @olivierlambert
          last edited by

          @olivierlambert said in XCP-ng 8.3 beta 🚀:

          @rRobbie can you disable/re-enable the "Auto power on" toggle, reboot and see if it works?

          If it doesn't, if the problematic VM is hosted on a storage repository that's inside a VM on the same host? (could be a "dependency" auto boot issue)

          I disabled / enabled the auto power on option, then rebooted the host and it worked fine. The vm started automatically along with the other vms with auto power on which started regularry the first time after upgrade to beta.

          Btw, the vm is running on local storage.

          Thanks
          RP

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

            I think the upgrade disable auto power on at the pool level (so even when your VM got it, disabling and then re-enabling will also re-enable it on the pool).

            I'm not sure there's an ideal solution, except maybe display if there's a discrepancy visible in XO when you have VM with auto power on enable while the pool doesn't.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • J Offline
              JoyceBabu
              last edited by

              I am migrating from Proxmox and have installed 8.3 beta. So far everything looks nice.

              Is SMAPIv3/ZFS-ng available in this release?
              https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2022/09/23/zfs-ng-an-intro-on-smapiv3/

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

                SMAPIv3 is "working", but you won't be able to live migrate the storage, export, backup etc. So it's not fully baked yet.

                It's better for now to use local ext SMAPIv1 for your local disks 🙂

                J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • J Offline
                  JoyceBabu @olivierlambert
                  last edited by JoyceBabu

                  Thank you for the clarification. If I would like to test ZFS-ng, how can I do that?

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

                    IIRC, there some hints here: https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2022/09/23/zfs-ng-an-intro-on-smapiv3/

                    J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • J Offline
                      JoyceBabu @olivierlambert
                      last edited by

                      I saw your post on https://github.com/xapi-project/xapi-storage/issues/101 about the status of SMAPIv3. I also saw another comment on the project that the code has been merged with xen-api. Is SMAPIV3 stable? When you say it is not fully baked yet, are you referring to SMAPIv3, ZFS-ng or both.

                      Can we expect ZFS-ng support in XCP-ng at least by 2024?

                      olivierlambert created this issue in xapi-project/xapi-storage

                      closed Is SMAPIv3 still maintained? #101

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

                        SMAPIv3 isn't fully baked because:

                        1. Doesn't support live storage migration
                        2. No migration path from v1 to v3 and vice versa

                        But it's the future of the platform. ZFS-ng is just "one driver" written to work for SMAPIv3, which is the "framework" if you prefer 🙂

                        J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • J Offline
                          JoyceBabu @olivierlambert
                          last edited by

                          So, if I understand correctly, it seems that SMAPIv3 may currently lack some features, and until those features receive upstream support, XCP-ng might not be able to provide full support for it.

                          I'm curious about this because, from what I've seen, Vates has been making admirable efforts to enhance XCP-ng with new features. However, if this specific feature relies on upstream support, it might take some time before we can expect its implementation.

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

                            Let's say it's harder with the upstream, since it requires a good collaboration with other entities, that might have other priorities or not really interesting in reviewing/validating your contributions. Note it's better with some projects and harder with others.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • psafontP Offline
                              psafont @gsrfan01
                              last edited by

                              @gsrfan01 The error happens because the joining host has TLS certificate checking enabled for pool connections while the joined host don't.

                              This mismatch happens because on fresh installs TLS certificate checking is enabled, while for updates from previous versions is not.

                              To enable TLS certificate checking in a pool simply running xe pool-enable-tls-verification.

                              The emergency command is not needed in this case, it's useful to re-enable certificate checking in a single host after is has been disabled using the emergency disable

                              stormiS G 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • stormiS Offline
                                stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @psafont
                                last edited by

                                @psafont Will a 8.2 to 8.3 upgrade (through the installation ISO) leave TLS verification disabled, or will it enable it by default?

                                In other words: must we expect any user who upgrades from 8.2 or lower and then later wants to add a new host to the pool to see this error (and likely ask for help, even if we document it properly - and we would of course)?

                                psafontP 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • psafontP Offline
                                  psafont @stormi
                                  last edited by

                                  @stormi said in XCP-ng 8.3 beta 🚀:

                                  @psafont Will a 8.2 to 8.3 upgrade (through the installation ISO) leave TLS verification disabled, or will it enable it by default?

                                  It's not enabled by default, enabling it by default is not possible with the current update procedure where the pool coordinator is updated before the other pool member because these do not expose the new certificates to xmlrpc clients before upgrading, breaking communications.

                                  In other words: must we expect any user who upgrades from 8.2 or lower and then later wants to add a new host to the pool to see this error (and likely ask for help, even if we document it properly - and we would of course)?

                                  Yes

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • G Offline
                                    gsrfan01 @psafont
                                    last edited by

                                    @psafont that's good to know, there were disturbingly few results when I searched for the error or the command.

                                    This post is actually the top result for me now alongside a blog post from Oliver that wasn't there originally.

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

                                      I just pushed a few updates to the XCP-ng 8.3 repositories. Update as usual.

                                      • blktap, sm, tzdata: requirements for supporting XOSTOR on XCP-ng 8.3
                                      • xsconsole: now displays VLAN number for each NIC (improvement contributed by XCP-ng users: https://github.com/xapi-project/xsconsole/pull/6)
                                      GnomeZworc opened this pull request in xapi-project/xsconsole

                                      closed add vlan display on xsconsole #6

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

                                        @stormi

                                        Hi stormi !

                                        Thanks for the wonderful release. Here are my 2 cents after preliminary testing :

                                        Bugs Found :
                                        The iso creates the partitions: 1,2,3,5,6 ( Partition No. 4 seems to be missing ), this is when NO SR is created at the time of install.

                                        Improvements Found [ Over previous Releases] :
                                        The IP is allotted much faster than in 8.3 alpha release which took a long time to set-up the network.

                                        Other Notes:
                                        Dual-Stack without static IPv6 does not seem to work. I don't know if this is a bug. Also if Dual-stack is selected at the time of installation, and the Router/DHCP does not support IPv6, even IPv4 is not allotted. Technically, if IPv6 is not available, then IPv4 should be allotted and IPv6 left without allotment. But in this case the whole system seems to have no network.

                                        Test Specs :
                                        Processor : Intel 8700
                                        RAM : 32 GB
                                        SSD : 512GB + 1 TB

                                        Please note that this is a preliminary test only and I would conduct more tests soon on Ryzen 5950X also.

                                        Thanks once again for your quick releases !

                                        BenjiReisB stormiS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • BenjiReisB Offline
                                          BenjiReis Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @gb.123
                                          last edited by

                                          Hi @gb-123 thanks for the tests

                                          Can you be more precise with your Dual stack issue reports?

                                          • are you encountering issue during the isntall or after when XCP-ng is installed?
                                            Ipv4 and 6 configuration are independant from one another so it surprises me.
                                          G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • G Offline
                                            gb.123 @BenjiReis
                                            last edited by gb.123

                                            @BenjiReis

                                            It was just a preliminary test.

                                            There seems to be no problem when installing. Its just that when dual stack is chosen, and the router ipv6 dhcp is disabled, xcp-ng gets no network.

                                            I was expecting that in case IPv6 is not available, IPv4 would get allotted. Rather if both are available, both would get allotted.

                                            This may be a router issue, I will have to dig deeper into this. That's Why I put it to 'Other Notes' instead of 'Bug' section.

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