@Ascar said in Neofetch on XCP-NG: @Forza Not a bash script, a package that requires installation. XCP-NG has all repos wisely disabled. That's why installing it on this specific type of host is not a trivial task. Sure it is packaged for many distros, but it is just a bash script. Neofetch is a command-line system information tool written in bash 3.2+ https://github.com/dylanaraps/neofetch Neofetch only requires BASH, the rest of the dependencies are entirely optional https://github.com/dylanaraps/neofetch/wiki/Dependencies But to state what others already said, it is not recommended to install stuff in dom0.

@Danp Thank you, trying now.

@Ascar In XO cloud means pool, "hamburger" means host. If VM is running, it belongs to host where it runs, and receives host icon, no matter where it is kept in stopped state. If VM is stopped, it belongs to pool if kept on pool shared storage (cloud icon), or to host, if on host's local storage (hamburger).

Yes.

Might be worth installing netdata plugins into your hosts. https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/2288/netdata-package-is-now-available-in-xcp-ng Installing Netdata manually ...Just run yum install netdata-ui on each host you want to monitor and that's it. You can just go on http://host_address:19999 and view the different metrics. If you want a centralized netdata and stream everything to a "central" host, feel free to read Netdata documentation on how to do so!

@olivierlambert In all honesty, despite how cool this would be, I don't think there is a very big use case for it. Definitely would still be awesome to see but I can't really find myself using it even in an odd homelab setup with dedicated GPUs passed through or something like that. Maybe would be useful for something like a virtual firewall? But I personally don't think firewalls should be virtualized in any sort of prod setting.

@Ascar Your idea here seems pretty much spot on, I don't really see any issues with it. The only thing I would note is that personally for me, and especially in an actual prod environment, I recommend the NAS being it's own box running the OS on bare metal. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with what you are wanting to do, but for me, the device handling my backups and large amounts of data needs to be 100% functional, the last thing I want is something to go wrong with my hypervisor which somehow breaks my ability to get the backups to restore things. There are plenty of people that do setups just like this though, especially in a homelab, and they usually don't run into issues.

That script has a shebang pointing to node (first line), so no need to define it separately, just execute the script directly.

@bikepope Thank you. Useful information to understand the market landscape.

@olivierlambert This is correct, your logic is spot on. The pFsense VM was soft-migrated with continuous replication. However the XO VM was made afresh from scratch and it was not starting. Anyway, things work as expected now, thanks!

Yes, as it's the recommended tool to manage your VMs

@ascar Maybe this helps: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/97553/pfsense-2-3-on-xen-server/5 Also, dont forget to disable offloading.

Hi! XCP-ng Center is not officially supported as client for XCP-ng. It's only community maintained and doesn't report updates. Applying patches shouldn't crash the host, at all. Try to check the logs if it's related and if you have more info Rebooting is needed if you want the patches to be applied "for real". In theory, there's only some kind of patches that would require a reboot (kernel and Xen itself), but so far we can't discriminate them, so we ask for a reboot to be 100% they are applied anyway.

That's because UEFI is almost by default on HyperV since longer in XenServer/XCP-ng. When Windows 2012R2 was out, only BIOS was available on XenServer. So they put the template using UEFI. Again, with Xen Orchestra, you should have been able to enable UEFI with it.

@Ascar said in Disk Usage for Control Domain on server 'abc.mydomain.com' has reached 92%.: If you see any deficiency in my plan please share your view. The main drawback I see is that you may have to reboot that VM from time to time, so the SR will become unresponsive and maybe hang some tasks until it's back. And when you reboot your hosts they will try to connect to a VM that may not be available yet. I would say definitely no for use of a VM as shared storage, but for an ISO SR that may be usable enough.