DustinB

DustinB

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.

DustinB

@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.

DustinB

@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

DustinB

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.

DustinB

@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.

DustinB

@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.

DustinB

@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.

DustinB

@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?

DustinB

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.

DustinB

@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?"

DustinB

@jshiells How much free space is on your SRs?

DustinB

@dfrizon said in How to protect a VM and Disks from accidental exclusion:

@olivierlambert The idea is to block the VM and exclusion disks even by root itself, and make it possible only via command line in the console. That's why I started the post by mentioning the command...
We dream of the day when MFA authentication will be required to delete a VM...

How would you prevent the root account from taking action..... that is the absolute opposite permission set of root, as if there is an account with even more permissions than root.

You can use permission sets and move your team who are deleting powered off VM's that are protected from accidental deletion into a group that doesn't have the permission to delete VMs, at the same time, remove their permissions from deleting items from your SR.

I think that would solve your problem, and doesn't cause any logical permission issues like above.

DustinB

@dfrizon said in How to protect a VM and Disks from accidental exclusion:

Hello everyone!

We want to protect some VMs and associated disks from being deleted (acidental or proposal). The command below protects the VM from being deleted but not the associated disks:

xe vm-param-set uuid=<UUID_OF_THE_VM> blocked-operations:destroy=true

What parameter is missing to be included?

Thanks!!

Within XO this is very straight-forward. Under the VM's advanced details tab

DustinB

@olivierlambert said in CPU radio buttons on usage graph:

Those graph are 10y old, and XO 6 will be the default UI in XO 6, so I think we can confidently said we won't take time to debug those old graphs.

Kind of what I had figured. That XO6 is the way forward.

DustinB

@olivierlambert said in Netbox - Conflicting IP addresses break sync:

Hi,

What would be the expected behavior? It's normal to report a conflict, because if you boot the copy, while leaving the original running, you will indeed have a conflict.

Is it possible to disable the NIC on the DR replica to validate that it boots to a desktop?

@Pilow changing the MAC address could effect DHCP and DNS. Changing the IP address occurs within the VM and XCP-ng/XO don't directly make edits to these types of settings.