I just added a P4 to one of my hosts for exactly this. My servers can only handle low-profile cards, so the P4 fits. Not the most powerful of GPU's but I can get my feet wet.

From my perspective, there's literally money on the ground for any virtualization platform to pick up VDI with Intel. The GPU's are affordable and performant for VDI work. They currently work with Openshift and Proxmox is at work on it.

When IBM/RedHat "killed" CentOS, the rest of the world took a hint and left. Companies and projects left CentOS in droves as the future of their products were in jeopardy due to the loss of CentOS.

At this point, the damage is done.

These latest 8.3 update speeds are still slower than a 13 year-old Xeon E3 1230.

@Andrew Thanks for that added detail.

Your success to Wasabi is encouraging. Perhaps Planedrops performance issues with BackBlaze B2 is related to a specific combination of implementation of S3 between BackBlaze and XO.

Things to test:

XO to AWS
XO to Wasabi
XO to BackBlaze

Theoretically, the performance should be the same to all S3 endpoints.

@olivierlambert From Intel's page:

"With up to 62 virtual functions based on hardware-enabled single-root input/output virtualization (SR-IOV) and no licensing fees, the Intel Data Center GPU Flex 140 delivers impeccable quality, flexibility, and productivity at scale."

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/discrete-gpus/data-center-gpu/flex-series.html

Generally speaking...Just because you haven't had direct requests doesn't mean the feature isn't desired.

It's easy enough to look over the current features and because it's not listed, you assume it's not there and move on to find the next viable solution.

Proxmox and OpenShift seem to be killing it in this space with Intel Flex GPU's.

I can't believe that there's not much interest.

Anyway...As far as I know these are pretty well supported in newer kernels. I think you need to be fairly deep in kernel 6. Given that XCPng/XenServer is currently running on kernel 4 with a bunch of backports, this might be a little problematic.

Last I knew, Intel is not charging licensing fees for using vGPUs like NVidia does.

With a working driver in XCP-ng and no licensing fees, this is could be a real cost-effective VDI platform.

I just added a P4 to one of my hosts for exactly this. My servers can only handle low-profile cards, so the P4 fits. Not the most powerful of GPU's but I can get my feet wet.

These latest 8.3 update speeds are still slower than a 13 year-old Xeon E3 1230.

While not critical...It would be nice to have the same dialog for system disks as we do for system names in the multiple VM's section under "advanced." Seems like a really easy thing to add that would prevent someone from having to go back and rename disks later. The system is already creating a name, it's already giving us the ability to name the disks for singles, why not be able to name the disks like the systems for multiples?

Okay...Updated to latest commit. Still behaves the same

@DustinB I'm on ee6fa which is apparently 11 commits behind. I'm updating now. and will retry a multiple VM deployment and see what happens.

My understanding is that the "name" of the disk doesn't really matter so much as that's more for us humans. The system mainly works off of UUID's which are unique.

I'll post back later.

Using XO from sources (and presumably XOA) to deploy multiple VM's, there's a function to set the names for the VM's. I wish there was the same capability to name the disks.

I usually label the disks the same as the host with an _0 for first (boot) drive, and _"X" for any subsequent drives (if any).

So using XO, if I try to create three hosts with the advanced/multiple feature, I can set the host naming: Sys-VM-1, Sys-VM-2, Sys-VM-3, and I would like to define their respective system drives as Sys-VM-1_0, Sys-VM-2_0, and Sys-VM-3_0, but instead, I get three disks named the same as whatever I specified in the main VM disk creation dialog (Sys-VM-1_0). Yes...You can go back later and rename them, but it would be nice to just do it all from the main dialog and not have to go back later and clean up.

@Seneram If you search the forum you'll find other topics that discuss this. In January/February 2023 I reported it myself because I was trying to build a cluster that needed high-performance networking and found that the VM's couldn't do it. While researching the issue then, I seem to recall seeing other topics from a year or so prior to that.

Just because this one thread isn't two years old doesn't mean this is the only topic reporting the issue.