If I had my choice, Prevent Migration is more understandable.

Disable Migration, while it means the same thing, doesn't naturally come out of the English language.

@olivierlambert I was able to sort out the issue, it has to do with licensing and the fact that we aren't licensed to with "Live Migration" for this ESXi host.

Essentially this inquiry is solved.

@TechGrips While I can understand the desire to use removable USB as a Backup Repo, I would highly discourage it.

Managing and rotating USB drives is a pain, if they go to sleep, it's a pain, if they fail it's a pain, if you forget to rotate your drives, it's a pain.

I personally can understand the desire to do so, it's cheap and relatively affective if you can deal with these risks, however so is just using any NFS or SMB share and then having a replication script that could write to your USB, which you could then rotate. Separating your XCP-ng hosts, XO, and your backups is of critical importance because if you have any sort of server room environmental issues or failure, you're risking loosing everything.

XCP-ng and Xen Orchestra, while they do offer a ton of flexibility, there is obviously trades-offs to using less than ideal components, such as external USB drives as your primary backup repository.

If you really want to insist on using USB drives, you'll have to attach the drives to your host and then pass them through to your XO installation, which when you want to rotate those drives you'll have to update your Backup jobs within XO and confirm that your XO VM has the proper access to the drives. This seems like a lot of complexity for very little financial benefit.

Separately I think you're taking your own frustrations out on the community, because of a lack of understanding in the tooling that you testing in comparison to ESXi where you'd attach a USB drive directly, perform your backup, remove the disk and attach another.

I get that ESXi can make things "simple" but simple isn't always better.

HTH

The reason you wouldn't want to look at XO for this from a technical standpoint is because XO works at the hardware level of the hypervisor, dolling out resources to different VMs and creating backups.

You need to look at the content within a given VM and compare the file system difference from points A and B.

Only something that is operating within the file system would be able to readily tell you "Something has changed".

Odds are you have a user or several who are dumping files onto a share that they shouldn't be, or are replicating some cloud service to keep a copy on your server etc.

@flakpyro said in How to migrate XOA itself?:

@DustinB Are the any downsides to having two XOA instances pointing at the same pool? Since the config itself is stored at the pool level im guessing theres no downside?

IE: Priimary XOA running in core DC and secondary XOA running at your DR site. Is it just a matter of adding the pool on the secondary XOA and it downloads the existing config or did you need to do a full export / import?

If you import your configuration, each XO instance will think they should be running the backups as far as I've noticed. If I have two instances running with the same configuration, I simply disable the backup jobs on one of them.

The config file is just an XML that contains your existing instance. You can import it to any new XO instance and have the same exact configuration.

@yzgulec there really isn't any hard-fast rules to aligning CPU to vCPU. A Guest is going to need cores to operate no matter what.

If you're trying to min-max your CPU utilization for a given system, you might want to target the guest to use between 70-80% of it's vCPU all of the time.

This is all a part of system tuning and is always a shifting target, as CPU is shared among all VMs and DOM0.

As you increase the number of guests on a host, the CPU consumption will be increased, which means you may need to scale back on the vCPU a given VM has.

@olivierlambert I agree wholeheartedly with you on that. Keeping the system stock is best for support.

Separately, is there any planned work on officially integrating support for Uninterruptable Power Supplies and XCP-ng 8.3?

A question

• Have you clicked into the console screen before hitting F12?

You can disable all of the boot devices in the Advanced section of the VM, try disabling the HDD

Disable the Boot options if your system is making it past POST to quickly so you can get into the Guests BIOS.

@jasonnix said in A question for the creators of XO:

Hi @olivierlambert,
No, I'm not a bot. I asked it because I need your experiences. I want to make a panel for Xen.

So you know how to program with PHP and Ruby and not with Javascript, so the question is really "Why can't this be rewritten so I can help?"

For laughs I am testing with a VM that is powered off and its going, albeit slowly (likely due to a 10FDx port on the ESXi host).

@Andrew7 XCP-ng has always been free to use, the same for Xen Orchestra (from source) you can look at my profile to find a link or read the documentation to deploy it yourself.

You've hijacked someone else's thread to ask your question because their question was similar to yours, I guess?

And you seem to have an arrogance about your inquiry of "it just works on this other product that we're fleeing from that would cost us as much as 300% more every year forever".

And on the same coin, other side you're saying you haven't the faintest reason why anyone would be upset with your tone, while asking for free help.

Support for a 3 host pack, is as cheap as $1000/year or $3000, with essentially unlimited and confidential access for a product which has a long tract record.

@Andrew7 said in Cloudbase-init on Windows:

I came from VMware world, and everything there just works.
Here you have to put your problem on forum ( most of them are just basic/standard VM deployment and administration stuff ) and pray for an answer with a resolution.

Best regards

You're welcome to go back to VMWare as well.

As the saying goes, "if you're free to stay, you're free to go".

If you want to buy support for your environment then do so and you can create a private ticket with the Vates company and not have to post on the forums. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

@plaidypus You can configure the disk within the guest OS to match whatever formatting you want. I would suspect the performance gains would be included as well, but you'd have to test and verify.

@plaidypus said in Rocky Linux 8 (RHEL Potential for Performance Issue:

@DustinB We currently pay for support on this product, and it supposedly supports Rocky Linux 9,

Then call the software vendor and have them fix their code.... I don't see how this is at all related to XCP-ng or XO, but rather is only this software vendors issue.

Or are you saying that it this software is supported on RHEL, and you're using Rocky linux to avoid purchasing a RHEL license?

@plaidypus support, is like a recommendation. It means that the vendor of this software won't help you out if you try to run it on Rocky 9 or later.

The questions I would raise is; Are you actively using support (paying for support) on this software? If so why not just upgrade the software so it supports the current release cycle?

If it's anything other than "we hadn't thought about it" then it's the sunk cost fallacy at which point, stop caring about the "support" and just install it on Rocky 9.

@piotrlotr1 said in XO New Pool Master:

@DustinB No, no... look at the "Label" column.

The question is - why after detaching hosts from pool, they all have "Label" the same as pool master?

All of these hosts are in different pools, the individual host name is moot once joined to a pool (at least it appears to be).

Are you unable to rename the hosts to something else?

@Andrew no, you would only connect the management IP address of a given host to XO, either as a standalone pool or as a part of an existing pool.

Is the goal to have a redundancy should you lose a network interface that is the "management interface"?

@piotrlotr1 A host can only be a part of a single pool at one time, so when you add your new master to XO, the other hosts in the same pool will disappear from the XO hosts page.

That is expected behavior

@tuckertt said in Multiple AD sources to Xen Orchestra:

@DustinB so its as much a compliance piece as anything else. UK instance of a US company with data sovereignty laws in play. The administrator AD is UK only and the other AD can be anyone

GDRP is really a bit of a pain in the butt, because a username is covered under GDRP and that the username has to stay within the user's country.

The question I would raise is there a better way to limit this data into its required geographic region, like multiple XO instances and pools. Rather than one large pool, which would then be configured to allow people to access the resources from different geographic regions while keeping things GDPR compliant.....

The Vates team, being from France likely has some ideas on this that would be worth* consulting with them on.

@tuckertt said in Multiple AD sources to Xen Orchestra:

@DustinB so its as much a compliance piece as anything else. UK instance of a US company with data sovereignty laws in play. The administrator AD is UK only and the other AD can be anyone

You're allowed to have shared hypervisors? Do these servers operate in the Atlantic ocean?