The wait period will be nice, after an RPU I'm watched VMs bounce back and forth trying to put themselves on another host. It's been a few updates since I noticed that, but a cooldown seems like a good idea, especially one that can be adjusted as you've made this one.

This reminds me that I have some work to do on my policy, mostly for anti-affinity.

@ShaneNP

I just set my lab back up from scratch, I can't remember for certain, but I think it pushed me over to v5 to set up the SR.

@DustinB

Indeed I will, but are the prices really that close? I was looking a few weeks ago with some replacements and spinning was still enough cheaper that it made a difference. I was looking for around 4tb enterprise class drives.

Just wondering about a possible XOstor configuration as far as performance:

3 hosts, each can have 3 spinning disks for HCI. Need about 6tb of usable free space and understanding each host is essentially a mirror of the other hosts. Total 12 drives in the pool.

What size drives would be best to achieve this? Would 2tb x3 drives give me this because they are not put into a raid like array on each host? Would I need to go 4tb x3 drives because it would make a RAID3 like array on each host? Or would I need larger x3 drives in each host? I only have SATA on these hosts.

Also how close are we to a "from sources" guide this would certainly get prototyped in my lab with a different drive configuration (single nvme), but I'd need to plan ahead for production. Time always being against me, it would take months to get this prototyped and the demo period will run out multiple times while I'm trying to work on this.

An example of time against me, I've had Harvester up for a month and still haven't build the first VM and haven't tried to get Rancher installed on a docker and integrated. It's certainly a much heavier lift to get to where XCP-ng and XO get you. I just feel like eggs in one basket is not something I should be doing (looking at you Broadcom and IBM ).

@DustyArmstrong

The only GPU I've ever tried was nvidia quadro series, and that was probably under 8.2.

@MichaelCropper

Truenas on bare metal just as storage, XCP-NG is also bare metal on 3 hosts to make a pool. That's the minimum if you want to enable High Availability, it also works really well as a "normal" pool which is what I have.

Rolling Pool functions are great, click the button and the system moves the VMS off of the host that need updates, reboots, moves VMs off of the next host, repeat. Only works with Shared storage.

@acebmxer

I will make one suggestion that might be a problem for some users with really strict password requirements. Make the default password something more complex that doesn't contain the username or the word password.
One capital, one lower case, one number or special, and minimum 8 characters.

Alternate would be a note calling our where in the script the default can be edited, this way you don't have to do much, and those that need the default more complex can change it themselves before they run the script.

I'll try this in the future when I move me lab up to XCP-ng version 9, no timeline on this since I wanted it done two weeks ago.

[edit] full of typos today, please excuse my mistakes

@MichaelCropper

My Truenas runs on bare metal, I have smb SR for iso, NFS SR for VMs, another smb for VMs.

In production I have a second old Truenas that that has smb and nfs that I use for storage updates, migrate from faster to slower storage which is still generally enough for my needs, update Truenas, migrate back to faster. I also have a third Truenas that has user data, but it's big so I set up a backup remote smb to spread out my disaster footprint.

In my lab is just a single bare metal Truenas with whatever kind of share I need. Generally just smh and nfs or iso and vm.

Both systems run three XCP-ng hosts so I can do things like rolling pool updates with no VM downtime. RPU is genius, all automated, just click a button and watch VMs move and hosts reboot.

@MichaelCropper

I would restart the xcp-ng tool stack or do a rolling pool reboot.

Since your SR is hosted on Windows, I might uninstall the last updates and see if things start working. Then make a plan to move storage to Truenas.

@olivierlambert

I wish I had newer generations of the big HP DL360 on the bottom, mine do not support uefi, and that's getting in the way. Sitting power off to keep the bios battery from running down. Those are 20 cores with 128gb each, and again 10gbe networking.

HP T740 with 64g of ram, 256g sata for OS, optional nvme for faster storage, optional 10gbe networking through low profile card. Works great for my lab.

Ran vSphere8 on three of them, running Harvester on 3 of them now. XCP-ng and vSphere8 work great, Harvester is a bit more resource hungry. Only the bottom three have nvme and currently have Harvester 1.7.0 running while I try to find time to learn more about this system.

@MichaelCropper

XO from sources means you are probably in XO6, have you tried from the XO5 link or tried from XO-lite?

Is the storage where you are trying to put it properly connected and working?

I haven't had to create a VM since version 6 came out, but I thought there was a thread mentioning some difficulty making a new VM from xo6.

@acebmxer

I think I need to update mine, probably a ton of commits old by now.

@aesparragon said in ️ XO 6: dedicated thread for all your feedback!:

It looks like the same IP addresses are being displayed for multiple adapters. Each adapter should only show its own assigned IP addresses.

I saw that the other day, you should be able to expand the next block to the right to see the individual connection ports. I think this is one of those "need to get accustomed" to the new interface things. But I'd agree that it is more clear in XO5.

XO-Lite does break them down by PIF, but does not currently show the IP address of that host. Seems like we are wanting a mix between XO-Lite and XO6.

@acebmxer

I need to check, I think my from sources is also doing this, light/dark stays but I need to check themes and see. That said I am probably 3 dozen commits behind at this point and probably going to wait until next week to update any of my XO from sources (yes two, one VM and one on bare metal Debian as a backup).

@florent

Thanks. I'm still going to wait until next week, my schedule just doesn't give me the time right now. But nice to know that when I do update, it will be fixed and my laziness prevented a problem for me

I think I'll get my pool updated today, only been waiting a week at this point.

@probain

I'm still on an older commit, being lazy and haven't had the time to update. Next week is Microsoft updates day, I may deal with XO the same day.

I run health checks on mine every night when they backup, so for me this could get big very fast. I think I'm going to continue to wait until there is more news on this issue, or I'll have to uncheck the accidental deletion box (not my desired choice). I'll let you know next week what I decided.

@probain

Not that this is an answer, but what happens if you uncheck the deletion box, and delete them manually?

[edit] strike all that, I found them in XO5 and removed them. It was the reshuffling of where things are between the new interface.