@stormi said in XCP-ng 8.0.0 Beta now available!:

You could test with Citrix Hypervisor and then report it at https://bugs.xenserver.org
Maybe they'll want to investigate even if the hardware is not officially supported. If someone can reproduce the issue on supported hardware, that would make things easier.

Though I doubt it was woth the effort, as the support over there is well known (especially for not supported configurations etc.) I did it - for the reason of trying to improve stuff (and giving back to OSS community):
https://bugs.xenserver.org/projects/XSO/issues/XSO-955

@stormi dd stands for disk dump and does exactly that: Copy a stream of data.
Fio however can be configured for precise workloads and read/write mixes, parallel workloads etc.

So the first thing will only give you streamline benchmarks, what almost nobody cares about.
The second can simulate realworld (VM/database...) workloads, where (controller) Caches and non magnetic storage (Flash, Optane, MRAM...) makes the real difference.
Also use big amount of data, since caches can impact small ones extremely. Don't get me wrong: We need them and they can make huge differences, but as long as your benchmarks fully fit into them, it gives your nonsense/fake results. Also (consumer) SSDs start throttling after some 10 to a very few 100 GB of data written. Their caches fill up and they 'overheat'.

You can spend days on benchmarks and how to do what.

https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xen-orchestra-5-36/

The part about ZFS:

As there are many possibilities during the creation of a ZFS storage repository, you still need to use the command line (eg. zpool create zdata /dev/sdb) to create your SR.

Check this documentation for more information about ZFS SR creation.

Once the SR is created, you will have the option to select it during the SR creation directly in Xen Orchestra.

Since it's confusing and technically wrong, it should rather be something like:

As there are many possibilities during the creation of a ZFS storage repository, you still need to use the command line (eg. zpool create zdata /dev/sdb) to create a ZFS pool before creating the corresponding SR.

Check this documentation for more information about ZFS SR creation.

Once the ZFS pool is created and mounted, you will have the option to select the mountpoint during the SR creation directly in Xen Orchestra.

...and this forum is missing a "quote" button, as formating text in codeboxes doesn't work (and tags don't survive a linebreak, you have to mark it every line again).

Regards,
Christof

Citrix also has a long history of problematic VM guest-tools. Race conditions with broken drivers, unbootable VMs, broken agents... It's a pain in the a**.
If you like your VMs: Always make a snapshot of every VM before updating the tools.

Is known why they remove the VSS-functionality? I don't get why they remove features (again).

XCP-ng already ate a bunch of time, and I'm sure it'll continue for testing etc
I'm Sysadmin with very limited coding ability - I'm definately out for that.

I guess it would need someone being good at C#.NET. Also XAPI would probably need to know about it (what may already be, as you're implementing it into XOA)...

First rule of all benchmarks: The longer and more often they run, the more precise they are.
If we talk about 1G as base, why should I switch with 10 or 100 to M? That doesn't make any sense at all.

@maxcuttins did you really measure 10 and 100 MB after I said 1 G is not enough for accurate results?

Usually you set blocksize to something usefull, like 1M and set count to e.g. 10000.
Of course you can change blocksize to test a bit, but that's usually between like 64k and maybe 4M.

How about doing your own matrix?

You should consider, that efficiency of vCPUs goes down by each one you add. I don't have the link to that Citrix document handy, so you need to google that.
If you really need that many cores, you should consider a physical machine, which should make a serious bump in performance.
AFAIR it was the overhead of the Xen scheduler, which needs to balance the needs of your VM. The more vCPUs one VM has, the bigger the overhead. I'm sure it didn't change in more recent versions.

Exactly this. Not giving - especially paying customers - any feedback/info is just the worst way to do your business.

I have good experience with WiBu Key dongles and a "Matrix USB-Key" (also license dongle) but couldn't get an Aladdin HASP working.
I can pass it through (it's visible and attached) but the VM doesn't show it in device manger (Windows 10 1909). I gave up for now and will probably use a network USB thingie from SEH - already have 2 of their devices running in different environments and they work flawlessly.

@olivierlambert what people often forget or not think about: You want to have someting mature, tested, stability proven - especially for an LTSR. People who stay on these branches don't do it for bleeding edge stuff.

Citrix also has a long history of problematic VM guest-tools. Race conditions with broken drivers, unbootable VMs, broken agents... It's a pain in the a**.
If you like your VMs: Always make a snapshot of every VM before updating the tools.

Is known why they remove the VSS-functionality? I don't get why they remove features (again).

I'm not happy to see DMC dropping, but even more removal of "VSS and quiesced snapshots" is sad.
It's probably one more step from general Hypervisor solution to VDI, as it's not really important there, but if you have DB servers etc...

Interesting... I wanted to post it as news, but it popped up as existing (similar...) - so it seems it's officially out now!
I don't see what Xen 4.13 brings to us. We're still on the LTSR track and wait for Vates to get official support by HPE.

They say things about storage performance improvements:
Multipage support is now available in non-GFS2 SRs for better storage performance.

I'm curious about what people will report back - and when XCP 8.1 comes out.

@Carlos-Raasch said in Creating local ISO SR failed -> Feature request:

One option, considering a single server, you would have a local SR. Create there a "ISO folder" and mount it, like ESXi do, using the XO interface to manage the files.

It's what the whole topic is about.

I'm just installing it on a smaller number of independent servers. I can't use an ISO share for that.
But I'm not limiting that to me: Other people have to do the same stepts manualls.
It's one change, that - in the long run - can save thousands of manual steps in the community.
The feature is pretty nice for smaller environments, especially as new servers often don't have optical drives anymore and using iLO for that requires an advanced license, which is not super cheap (relative to the price of smaller servers).

Edit: And yes, of course the 2nd thing would be an "upload" button, to use XOA to drop the ISOs there. (Or did I just miss that?)

@Biggen said in Creating local ISO SR failed -> Feature request:

How hard is it to SSH in and manually create the folder? It's 10 seconds worth of work tops. And you probably will never have to ever touch it again.

It's about optimizing things and taking away extra/manual steps that disturbs workflow with rather low effort to implement
.
I'm not feeding your negative vibes on that, so discussion is over for me. Oliver said they don't want to do things beside what XAPI can do and thereby it's done.

As XOA needs the root password and IP of the XS/XCP-ng host, it has everything, it needs.
It could be SSH'ed to create the folder (could be a manual switch without check - if it fails, it fails).

But I accept, if you don't want to go ways around XAPI.

The screenshot is an example. If the option to create a "local" SR inside a mounted filesystem is given, it makes totally sense to check if the directory exisits and - in case it doesn't - to create one. There's IMHO no need to force someone to create it by hand before.

2nd step would of course be an option, to upload the ISOs via webconsole.

Edit: Fixed the startpost.