XCP-ng 8.3 updates announcements and testing

acebmxer

@rzr Installed latest update and no issues to report. I dont hvae any 2tb+ drives in my vms. converting from vhd to qcow2 and backups all working.

Andrew

@rzr Updates running. VHD use only.

bufanda

Installed on my usual lab setup works fine so far although I have the "Fell back to full backup" message for qcow2 VMs

acebmxer

@bufanda Make sure you have enable the purge snapshot when using CBT, if you are using CBT. After the previous update that fixed fell back to full backup issue for me..

Maybe also try running a manual full backup to reset the VDI chain.

acebmxer

@rzr

One thing i am noticing after this updates. Is i am seeing alot more traffic on my truenas. The gaps are me shutting down vms and starting each one to find the problem vms but it seems to be any vm. I didnt notice any performance issues just noticed the graph in truenas when its usally flat line there the occasional spike here and there not the big mess to the left in first screenshot. 5 vms running

My xoa is on local storage on master host. and used for these test.
All vms are powered off except xoa and xo

Here i booted the xo vm and left it idle. The spike after is me live migrate back to vhd SR and then left idle.

The gap in the middle is xo idle on vhd only SR.

live Migrate xo back to qcow2 only SR

Migration back to qcow2 completed

Left xo ldle after migration to qcow2 sr.

Again all vms booted and idle....

From master host.

bufanda

@acebmxer purge snapshots is active since I created the backup job over a year ago. I always enable purge snapshots on backup jobs.

stormi

@bufanda I'm being told it's expected to have it the first time after the update, but in theory the next ones should be not be fulls. Can you try?

stormi

@acebmxer with qcow2, the way we scan the SR regularly uses more I/O, so this may explain it.

acebmxer

@stormi said:

@acebmxer with qcow2, the way we scan the SR regularly uses more I/O, so this may explain it.

Thanks for the update, that this is expected. I think it its a bit a excessive being its only 4 -5 vms.

bufanda

@stormi said:

@bufanda I'm being told it's expected to have it the first time after the update, but in theory the next ones should be not be fulls. Can you try?

Just checked and the VM I was testing with was part of two backups and it seems that when one runs and the second starts that it will fall back. I removed the VM now from one backup and with being only member of one backup job it looks good then. Will keep an eye on it.