@kagbasi-ngc Hi, thanks for your thoughts.

I get on well with Linux myself - I’m using XO from source following the documentation, and actually, Ronivay’s script, as you mentioned, makes it all even handier. Still, I can’t help but think - your average home user, a total amateur, is just going to land on the XCP-ng host homepage and click "Deploy XOA". And then they’ve no backup, outside of the trial period. But sure, if XOA is aimed squarely at business and enterprise users with paid licences, fair enough that makes perfect sense.

I just feel like backup isn’t really a purely business or enterprise feature, unlike, say, proxy instances or hyper-converged storage. It's something even home users would genuinely benefit from.

But as it is mentioned above, that’s just how it’s set up - and like you said yourself, everyone’s got the chance to learn something new. And sure, in the age of AI chatbots, there’s really no excuse not to manage it

Hi,
congratulations on another milestone, XOA 5.108! A massive thanks to all the developers, and I’m really rooting for you - may both Vates and our whole community continue to grow strong.

I’d love to ask someone from Vates how they see the position of XOA compared to the self-compiled version of XO. As most folks know, XOA is incredibly easy and elegant to install on an XCP-ng server - even a complete beginner with no experience can manage it without much bother.

But there is one key limitation in XOA that affects all casual users once the trial period ends - the integrated Backup tool is no longer available. Sure, if you compile XO from source, the Backup functionality is there. But even though we have a detailed guide, getting XO from source up and running can be a bit of a tough nut to crack for users with no Linux experience. Even using the pre-made scripts (like XenOrchestraInstallerUpdater, and the like), which seem to be the preferred method among the tech-savvy YouTubers promoting XCP-ng/XO(A), still calls for at least a bit of Linux know-how.

Now, things like XOSTOR or Proxies - a home user probably won’t need them. But Backup? That’s something that could really be made available in XOA for the everyday user.

What’s your take on that, Vates?

I also see it in my lab

The array was created later after installation manually using unused disks. And then it was connected in the normal way as a local SR using XO.

It would be nice if it would also handle the state of other mdamd RAID arrays. After all, the All mdadm RAID are healthy message kind of predetermines it

Yeah, that's it, thanks.

device = '/dev/md0'

@andriy.sultanov said in XCP-ng 8.3 updates announcements and testing:

does this reproduce if you reboot again

Yes, this does. Logs have been provided via pm.

[18:38 vms04 ~]# xe host-call-plugin host-uuid=5f94209f-8801-4179-91d5-5bdf3eb1d3f1 plugin=raid.py fn=check_raid_pool
{}
[18:38 vms04 ~]#

[18:38 vms04 ~]# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0]
md0 : active raid0 sdb[1] sda[0] sdc[2]
      11720658432 blocks super 1.2 512k chunks

unused devices: <none>
[18:56 vms04 ~]# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
           Version : 1.2
     Creation Time : Fri May  2 14:43:06 2025
        Raid Level : raid0
        Array Size : 11720658432 (11177.69 GiB 12001.95 GB)
      Raid Devices : 3
     Total Devices : 3
       Persistence : Superblock is persistent

       Update Time : Fri May  2 14:43:06 2025
             State : clean
    Active Devices : 3
   Working Devices : 3
    Failed Devices : 0
     Spare Devices : 0

        Chunk Size : 512K

Consistency Policy : none

              Name : vms04:0  (local to host vms04)
              UUID : bbdc7253:792a8ada:ee21a207:4b8d52d2
            Events : 0

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        0        0      active sync   /dev/sda
       1       8       16        1      active sync   /dev/sdb
       2       8       32        2      active sync   /dev/sdc
[18:56 vms04 ~]#

@stormi No stats until the toolstack restarts, as with previous candidates

@olivierlambert
8.3 including todays candidates

So it looks like it was a browser cache problem, solved by deleting it.

Hi,
In XO from source commit ab569, the tags I'm using don't appear in the pick list.

In XOA, they are available in the pick list

Any idea?

Under what circumstances is the RAID array status displayed here? I have an mdadm RAID array on my host (dom0), but here it says "No RAID information available":

@XCP-ng-JustGreat Until this is fixed, you need to restart the toolstack after each host restart, which is not often done, so it's not really a problem.

@Greg_E Please try restarting the toolstack once more.

Done
https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/commit/dba08f0fac866c76700a3785a178743770159883

0 MathieuRA committed to vatesfr/xen-orchestra

feat(xo-web/vm): rename 'block migration' to 'disable migration' (#8492)

Introduced by 11a801c
Related to #8222

@lawrencesystems
Thanks a lot for all the information and recommendations!

@lawrencesystems
And what is this option "Use differential restore" for? Do you have experience with it?

@lawrencesystems
Yes I understand that a normal restore will create a new VM. But there are situations where I just need to overwrite the backed up VM itself. So this is only possible with a snapshot and only the new VM is always restored from the backup?

Hi,
how exactly should I proceed if I want to restore a VM from backup but not as a new VM, but restore/replace the original one to keep the GUID etc.
Thanks in advance.

The update went fine and everything is working fine.

@gduperrey said in XCP-ng 8.3 updates announcements and testing:

xapi: Re-enabled nested virtualization in 8.3, with the same limitations as in 8.2.

Since I keep bothering with nested virtualization here on the forum, I of course immediately tried the support in 8.3

Setup:

• HW XCP-ng 8.3
• • Nested XCP-ng 8.3
• • • Windows Server 2025
• • • Debian 12.9

Windows installation on the nested hypervisor went ok and the system seems to be working fine.
The problem occurred with Debian. ISO 12.9 netistall, UEFI was used. The system boots up and shows the notorious install screen: Graphic install, Install ... Regardless of the type of installation chosen, immediately after starting it, nested hypervisor XCP-ng 8.3 crashes and reboots. By the way, this problem with Debian is also on VMware - if I use nested XCP-ng 8.3 there, the Debian installation crashes it just the same.