Is there any plan to expand XOSTOR with ZFS ontop of the LINSTOR/DRBD layer?

Here is a example of a HA setup with DRBD and ZFS:

• Highly-available ZFS-on-Linux, on top of DRBD

Understandable, I forgot that this is built ontop of LINTSTOR and not on DRBD directly.
I belive then this post by LINBIT is more appropiate.

• Stacked Block Storage in LINBIT SDS (aka LINSTOR)

This stack which is outlined seems interesting as it means we could for exampel use ZFS as volume manager and create a mirror-1 zpool for fast access, and raid-z2 or zfs draid for the slow access. Utilizing LINSTOR and DRBD for distributing this across the cluster. And utilizing bcache to unify these two zpools for using the fast/slow tier.

I understand that right now the storage controller api of xcp-ng and xo is not setup to utilize such a setup. but could I potentially setup a ext4 or zfs filesystem ontop of this stack and use the already existing storage controller infrastructure, or would I be losing out on either performance and/or features by doing so.

@bigdweeb, I saw the same issue with console as you describe too when using only the self-signed certificates without the IP field added to the SAN field.

I could use spin up my own CA and add that to my trusted cert store in OS and browser, and make certificates for a local (sub)domain.

Will experiment if it is possible to use that with a reverse proxy to access XO, XCP, and XO LITE.

xcp01.domain.ltd -> reverse proxy -> xcp01.sub.domain.ltd

Is there any plan to expand XOSTOR with ZFS ontop of the LINSTOR/DRBD layer?

Here is a example of a HA setup with DRBD and ZFS:

• Highly-available ZFS-on-Linux, on top of DRBD

Hi,

I have a setup for Let's encrypt certificates and automated renewal setup more or like this:

• Xen Orchestra from source with Let's Encrypt certificates

for my XCP-NG hosts and XO-CE via ACME service on my pfSense router.

Accessing my XCP-NG XO LITE instance via FQDN tell me to accept the certficates for each hosts IP address.

I suspect this has to do with the fact of the following statements:

@mjtbrady said in Xen Orchestra Lite:

@pdonias

That was the problem, but I do not think that it should be.

I am browsing to XO Lite using the FQDN of the XCP-ng host and the certificate had been accepted for that. But the console connection being made by XO Lite is to the XCP-ng host IP address.

@olivierlambert said in Xen Orchestra Lite:

Yes, Xen API (XAPI) is returning IP addresses only.

And traces back to the following to issues for XO and XenServer (XAPI):

• SSL certificate verification fails in stats query
• FQDN instead of IP address for XAPI calls (exports, stats etc.)

Let's encrypt certificates does not and cannot contain private range IP addresses in the Subject Alternative Name field, and thereby cannot be used with XO LITE and/or XAPI.

To be able to have a self-signed certificate for my FQDN and IP addresses I used the following script and config and installed this certificate onto XO-CE, my three XCP-NG hosts, and my web browser.

#!/bin/sh
openssl req -nodes -new -x509 -days 3650 -keyout /opt/ssl/xcp-ng.key -out /opt/ssl/xcp-ng.crt -config /opt/ssl/san.conf

[ req ]
default_bits       = 2048
distinguished_name = req_distinguished_name
req_extensions     = req_ext
x509_extensions = v3_req
prompt = no

[ req_distinguished_name ]
organizationName = Self-signed certificate
commonName = Self-signed certificate

[ req_ext ]
subjectAltName = @alt_names

[v3_req]
subjectAltName = @alt_names

[alt_names]
DNS.1=xo-ce.domain.tld
IP.1=192.168.1.2
DNS.2=xcp-ng-01.domain.tld
IP.2=192.168.1.3
DNS.3=xcp-ng-02.domain.tld
IP.3=192.168.1.4
DNS.4=xcp-ng-03.domain.tld
IP.4=192.168.1.5

In XO I need now to "Allow Unauthorized Certificates" which comes with the following warning:

• "Enable it if your certificate is rejected, but it's not recommended because your connection will not be secured."

Like this I can both access XO, XO LITE, and XO and XCP-NG communicates with eachother.
This makes it so that I can use XO LITE as a backup in case my XO-CE is down for some reason.

But, I do not like this way and would really prefer to be able to have the Let's encrypt certificates as I initially setup, is there any way to be able to use Let's encrypt certificates and to work around this?