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?"

@Tristis-Oris said:

@DustinB but this is impossible scenario. CR requried a VM SR, not a backup one) weird option.

You're still replicating a VM to a storage repository.

Maybe the system will allow you to create a more flexible CR job using different hosts, rather than 1:1 . . . ?

@Pilow said:

@ph7

still not clear what it does
"one backup archive of each VM"... on first remote ? on second ? alternatively ?

You get to add multiple backup repo's to your XO instance, if your backup SR becomes full, XO starts using the second, third etc storage repo so you don't have to lift and shift your backups.

@flakpyro said:

My understanding is this should only be happening during backups, not a CR run though.

CR is a form of backup.

https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xen-orchestra-6-2/

In the above blog posting this feature is explained that @ph7 referenced.

Another suggestion, collapse non-running VMs into a single group, rather than having them listed individually.

https://feedback.vates.tech/posts/50/collapse-non-running-vms-into-group

@john.c This is already viewable under each hosts in the pool.

@john.c said:

@DustinB said:

@olivierlambert https://feedback.vates.tech/posts/49/pool-view-rather-than-host-view

So you’re interested in having it a bit more like when using VMware vSphere while, regarding VMs, hosts and pools? That could work, but still need a hosts view for each member of the pool. In the host’s view it needs to be able to see, what VMs are running on it.

Also needs to be compatible with https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/issues/9430. If not already synced with NetBox, the pool and hosts should be linked by UUID when synced. So in other words the structure needs to be pool is linked by UUID to host by its UUID and then the same for VMs. So the VMs are linked by UIID to the host UUID.

Nothing in my post would restrict the view to only seeing VMs within a specific Pool, the view should be flexible enough to shows VMs in a pool.

As it is now, you see all VMs that are running under a given host and then pool.

This in and of itself could become tedious to manage/dig through.

The potential remedy here would be to show all VMs in a pool, and on the given VM show the host where it's running.

matiasst created this issue in vatesfr/xen-orchestra

open Link VMs to Host Devices via UUID in NetBox Plugin #9430

@olivierlambert https://feedback.vates.tech/posts/49/pool-view-rather-than-host-view

@benapetr said:

I just tried with XCP-ng 8.3 and it's exactly the same, just spinning wheels, nothing ever opens, same in Chrome.

I wonder how anyone even got this to work at all? or maybe I just chose some unlucky commit? I just built from latest master commit

You would download the ISO to install XCP-ng to your hardware. Are you specifically talking about Xen Orchestra?

https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/11967/gracefull-shutdown-of-host-when-ups-battery-runs-low

Not a great response, if this is really a need paying customers should go and put a request in on the ticketing side.