Is the recommended approach for finding HCL equipment still to look at Citrix's HCL. Specifically looking at adding GPU's to our pool and want to confirm that we won't have any issues passing these through to our VMs for use in Kubernetes.

TIA

@BrantleyHobbs said:

Hi there!

I'm using XO from source.

I can't see how to apply patches to a host from the GUI in XO-6; it reports that there are patches, but there's no option to apply them. I have to switch to XO-5, or use the command line.

Has this made it into the UI yet and I'm just missing it?

(FWIW, this is a home lab, and I have only a single host in a single pool. I don't know if the GUI has safety checks to prevent patching a machine with running VM's.)

At the moment you can't this is a WIP. You'll swap over to the v5 interface and perform your patching there. Unless you wanted to login to your pool master, manually patch that and then reboot it, lastly manually patching your remaining hosts in the pool.

@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.

@rzr said:

Yes this "extra" tool was not (never?) supported ,

NUT has never been supported in XCP-ng, it has been asked about for a long time though and a lot of people handle XCP-ng not as an appliance but as any other Server/Desktop system and install packages because they aren't blocked from doing so

@acebmxer Using performance mode should migrate your VM's so all systems are equally "performant" the different modes are outlined here https://docs.xcp-ng.org/management/vm-load-balancing/

As to why your VMs not migrate, I would only be guessing - anyways my guess is that it only polls the system every so often and if your systems are performing well enough nothing gets moved...

@firefly because the underlying hardware that the VM has registered has likely changed, maybe substantially.

A sysprep has the Windows system go through and validate what it's hardware is, it removes hardware specific drivers namely, but it does other stuff too.

sysprep on windows is also sometimes required, but will require that you reactive the OS with it's product key.

@firefly said:

Why would it take 30 minutes to boot a Windows ESXi 8.0.3 imported VM in XOA on the first boot?

Did you remove the ESXi drivers from the VM before migrating it to XCP-ng?

And to really round this out, the MTBF for any of these is in the millions of hours (1.2-3M), that's a use time of 136.968 - 342.46 years respectively.

Basically, if a drive dies, just replace it no matter what, but in the end the reliability of these drives is meant to outlast all of us.

Unless you actually need some specific function provided in some form-factor or model, don't bother.

@Greg_E The MTBF for Enterprise Hard drive, Enterprise SSD and Consume SSDs really falls into "it doesn't matter" category IMO.

https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive-test-data
https://www.serverstor.com/samsung-pm9a3-vs-990-pro-enterprise-vs-consumer-ssd-showdown/
https://www.ontrack.com/en-au/blog/kingston-blog-enterprise-and-client-ssds-compared-part-2

Since most hypervisors aren't getting slammed constantly with read/writes ops even something like a "decent" consumer set of SSDs will last effectively as long as the Enterprise Hard Drives if not slightly longer.

The break down above really helps to explain it all.

Enterprise HDDs -1.2-1.5 million hours between failure
Enterprise SSDs - 2-3 million hours between failure
Consumer SSDs - 1.2 - 2 million hours between failure

Unless you expressly need some specific feature of Enterprise hardware (ECC Ram etcera) why spend more on it?

It's slower, as costly if not just more/less than the SSD comparable, adds risks during recovery time after a failure (because it's slower to rebuild an array on spinning rust).

Really the only things I would consider today would be Enterprise SSDs or Consumer SSDs.

@ShaneNP said:

I just setup a fresh demo install (fresh empty XCP-NG) on a laptop w/ a NAS for ISO/VM/Backup, and thought I would give XO 6 a go...and the first thing I needed was a Storage Repository...where does one add that in XO 6? in XO 5 +New > Storage.

I am not seeing anything to add one, figured I would post here, because its a new interface, I might be 100% blind to it.

It's likely not functional in XO6 atm, I'd just default to using XO5 for the infrastructure setup and then you can test the XO6 interface out as your daily driver