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.

@stormi said in XSA-468: multiple Windows PV driver vulnerabilities - update now!:

Do others share this feeling and have this question after re-reading the whole announcement?

No it's pretty clear, update the drivers on everything as all versions are susceptible.

@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?"

@Danp said in XO Community edition backups dont work as of build 6b263:

@wf said in XO Community edition backups dont work as of build 6b263:

How do I roll back to a previous commit?

git checkout <target commit>

Then rebuild with yarn; yarn build

@marcoi use the above to roll back to a specific commit.

@bishoptf I would be very interested to read the T&C's on that agreement, cause it's sus AF.

@bishoptf said in XO and XCP-ng pricing:

@DustinB Nope that was a fully supported license including support...I could open tickets and maybe the response would have been slow but it was a fully supported instance.

Were you using version 4 of the software? Like, there is no way VMWare ever sold a license with support for $45/year within the past 15 years....

I've worked with some very large non-profits and their pricing was higher than that for modern versions of ESXi.

@bishoptf said in XO and XCP-ng pricing:

Yup for essentials my pricing was like $45/year, lol.

You were paying $45 a year to use the software.... literally nothing else, you got zero support with that $45 a year...

You can and many people do use XCP-ng and XOCE for $0/year forever and have saved that much money, and have been given access to the community for free, where the developers will respond if they have time.

@bishoptf said in XO and XCP-ng pricing:

Veeam starts to officially support it.

Veeam works inside of the VM as well, if you wanted a toolless backup solution you'd just use Xen Orchestra. . . I don't understand this fundamental lack of understanding that is happening in this topic....

@bishoptf said in XO and XCP-ng pricing:

compile from source it's not a easy path for a lot of folks

You aren't compiling anything, you're downloading an ISO and installing that to hardware, and in the case of XOCE, you're running a single line command on a Ubuntu Server.

All of it comes with community provided support.... provided at zero cost to you, which means you get to reap even more benefit (value).

@JeffBerntsen said in XO and XCP-ng pricing:

@bishoptf Something else to consider is the quality of support you get for what you pay. It's possible, not always possible, but possible, even likely, that you can download and use XCP-ng for free, build XO from source, giving you that for free, and still get better support here in the forums than the paid support you get from VMware (or from Citrix for XenServer for that matter).

Exactly, and on the flip side of that, there is nothing in the lowest tiers of support agreements from Broadcom that offers anything remotely close to an SLA or assurance, they may offer you the bare minimum of saying, "Thumbs up from us" and then tell you to upgrade to the latest version of the software.

Another way to look at this is Vates is saying that they simply won't sell you access to support for less than X dollars year (support, not the software the software is free).

You're saying that you only want to pay less than X dollars per year, and Vates is telling you that it isn't worth the business risk to sell to customers who are so small and is recommending you use the opensource software and community support for free.

If your customers told you that they wanted to pay you only a 10th per year what you're charging them now, would you accept that, or would you recommend that they find an alternative answer?

@bishoptf said in XO and XCP-ng pricing:

Wow, thats not really helping the conversation, not sure what point your trying to prove. I was just trying to point out that for us very small businesses that current Broadcom standard pricing is cheaper

It isn't cheaper, nothing can be cheaper than free. You're paying Broadcom for the right to use the software, without any assurance or support from the vendor directly.

With XCP-ng, ProxMox or just straight KVM, you get the software for free, and still have access to a community to ask for help.

You're confused about what you're paying Broadcom for and are expecting the same rules to apply here when they don't.

@McHenry said in Understanding multiple schedules:

@ph7

Thank you but still not 100% clear.

As we want to reset the delta chain periodically with a full backup, does the monthly full backup achieve this goal?

My question is ultimately, what is the maximum length of the delta chain in this scenario?

I don't know offhand if the full then creates new delta's from that point forward, as I recall the delta depth is pretty damn good (I've never had to restore from a full).

Maybe someone from the vates team will pop in and know the answer.