@stormi

I agree, confusing.

• Would be easier the Starwars way:
  "Always two, there are. No more. No less. A Master and a pool"

@stormi
Ok, I stand corrected, but then its not only a XCP/Xencenter issue. xsconsole also clearly differentiates between being member of a pool or not ? I know that there is always a "master", but either of a stand alone server or of a pool.

I actually think that this is one of these situations that totally frustrates a trainer, where what the trainer see in all official training materials (Citrix) and what you actually see in the source code.

@stormi you know the code far better than me, so when you say it

• I will rephrase:
  Even though it looks like there is a difference in both XCP/Xencenter and xsconsole, there is actually no difference in the actual system behind the interfaces.
• As long as you work with XCP/XS consoles, my previous comment is what you see and experience when using these unsupported tools !
• If you use the servers for production, there is only ONE tool you can rely on .... Xen Orchestra .... (and the support is outstanding)

@churchers As far as I know, there is no difference.

The xsconsole version is the Pool master saving the entire metadata "database" on storage, where XO backup the same metadata to an external resource.

Basically you only need this backup from one of the backup methods to be able to restore VMs, Networks, Storage LUNs etc. - but it is always a great idea to have these backups done several ways to several sources, as this can make the difference between repairing a broken storage and/or the VMs or having to do a full restore of all from the backup you (hopefully) have somewhere.

@jensolsson-se said in Accedentally set up a pool on an xcp-ng server:

xcp-ng-btdjnqqd

Is seems like the "name" xcp-ng-btdjnqqd is the autogenerated name suggested during installation.

This becomes the "name" of the server, but there is also a "name-label", which is what you see in most places of both the XCP-ng center and XO.

If you look in xsconsole, you will most likely see this "name" i the top right corner of the screen.

@stormi

I agree, confusing.

• Would be easier the Starwars way:
  "Always two, there are. No more. No less. A Master and a pool"

@stormi
Standalone:

Single server (New pool created):

@stormi
Ok, I stand corrected, but then its not only a XCP/Xencenter issue. xsconsole also clearly differentiates between being member of a pool or not ? I know that there is always a "master", but either of a stand alone server or of a pool.

I actually think that this is one of these situations that totally frustrates a trainer, where what the trainer see in all official training materials (Citrix) and what you actually see in the source code.

@stormi you know the code far better than me, so when you say it

• I will rephrase:
  Even though it looks like there is a difference in both XCP/Xencenter and xsconsole, there is actually no difference in the actual system behind the interfaces.
• As long as you work with XCP/XS consoles, my previous comment is what you see and experience when using these unsupported tools !
• If you use the servers for production, there is only ONE tool you can rely on .... Xen Orchestra .... (and the support is outstanding)

Just for absolute clarification:

• When a server is added in XCP-ng Center or Citrix XenCenter, it IS stand alone, we have many of these in production - not a problem.
• You have to create a pool or add it to an existing pool, to make it a member, so the xcp-.ng-3 is no longer a stand alone server, it is the master of a pool called xcp-ng-3 - not a problem.
• To remove it from the pool again - BIG problem, because you can not remove the master from a pool. You can destroy the pool by "hacking" and you will loose all VM's on local storage ! - BAD IDEA
• Leaving it as is looks a little strange, but has absolutely NO impact on the servers functionallity or reliabillity.
• So either "backup VM, reinstall server, do not create a pool and restore vm" OR Just live with it as is