Only updated one host in my pool so far, but it has my TrueNAS VM and network performance looks comparable

edit:

Actually quite an improvement in comparison to my results above

root@FILE001:~ # iperf -c 10.10.1.126
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.10.1.126, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 80.8 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  3] local 10.10.1.125 port 35576 connected with 10.10.1.126 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-10.1 sec  6.30 GBytes  5.36 Gbits/sec
root@FILE001:~ # iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  4] local 10.10.1.125 port 5001 connected with 10.10.1.126 port 54773
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  3.57 GBytes  3.06 Gbits/sec

Also done a VM reboot now and no passthrough issues

@stormi Only updated my test host so far, but all looks good to me.... no passthrough issues!!!

Will try and update my pool over the weekend and run some FreeBSD speed tests before and after (been waiting for that patch to make it out into the world).

@stormi A bit late to the party again (must try harder ) as I have been moving my rack and my test host was not set up and main pool down to running on 2 hosts..... taking one more offline would make Ceph very unhappy!!!....

Anyway, both test updates applied to my test host and I haven't managed to break anything yet!!! So looks good from my point of view.

@stormi Security updates on April 1st

Updating my pool now.... quite a substantial speed increase on FreeBSD

root@FILE001:~ # iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  4] local 10.10.1.125 port 5001 connected with 10.10.1.126 port 42952
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]  0.0-10.1 sec   694 MBytes   576 Mbits/sec
^Croot@FILE001:~ # iperf -c 10.10.1.126
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.10.1.126, TCP port 5001
TCP window size:  105 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  3] local 10.10.1.125 port 50605 connected with 10.10.1.126 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec   202 MBytes   169 Mbits/sec
root@FILE001:~ # iperf -c 10.10.1.126
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.10.1.126, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 80.8 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  3] local 10.10.1.125 port 45072 connected with 10.10.1.126 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  4.06 GBytes  3.49 Gbits/sec
root@FILE001:~ # iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  4] local 10.10.1.125 port 5001 connected with 10.10.1.126 port 47101
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  2.17 GBytes  1.86 Gbits/sec
^Croot@FILE001:~ #

@stormi said in XCP-ng 8.2.0 RC now available!:

yum update uefistored

I could only get it (uefistored-0.2.6-1.xcpng8.2.x86_64) to update by yum update uefistored --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing

But it has done the trick. No toolstak restart or reboot needed either.

@stormi Nice to do something useful and give a little back, other than buying a XCP-ng cushion for my office!

It appears that the rollback worked, but doesn't appear to have an impact on my issue, which is good news in a way.

@stormi thanks as always. If I do find the issue I'll let you know..... if I break everything then I'll just get a

A bit late to the party....... Updated my pool and no oddities to report.

I get this too with some back ups but not all. Not had chance to work out what results in what though

It appears that the rollback worked, but doesn't appear to have an impact on my issue, which is good news in a way.

@stormi thanks as always. If I do find the issue I'll let you know..... if I break everything then I'll just get a

Hi @stormi is there any easy way to rollback the September updates??? I'm guessing not but I have a strange issue which I think coincides with my last reboot after applying the updates so want to confirm or eliminate as the cause.

Thanks.

Just rebuilt to xo-server 5.81.2 / xo-web 5.86.0

Removing the Proxy from the remote and it looks like everything is good. Restored backup taken in Dec 2019.... so plenty of versions ago, and all is ok.

Backups still work with the Proxy.

Funnily enough (well not...), I was just having a back up tidyup and am seeing this;

backupNg.deleteVmBackup
{
  "id": "c20a37bc-748d-4320-ac56-53bf97c2f307//xo-vm-backups/2c4beba7-e1b7-0b4c-0165-a12cb7c0fb04/20210713T051224Z.json"
}
{
  "code": -32601,
  "data": "backup.deleteVmBackup",
  "message": "method not found: backup.deleteVmBackup"
} 

xo-server 5.81.0
xo-web 5.85.0

Last built a few weeks ago.

edit.... hummm my issue could be proxy related by the looks of it.

I think this is now 'fixed'!

I've rebuilt my XO from the sources today and I no longer have to (or can) select the SR.

On a previous build I think what I was seeing was migrating would always move the VM's disc to the default SR unless you specified the SR you wanted; even if you wanted it to stay on the current shared SR.

edit.... hummmm. the SR selection is only available if you select a migration network. Not sure if this is how it used to be.

@stormi A bit late to the party again (must try harder ) as I have been moving my rack and my test host was not set up and main pool down to running on 2 hosts..... taking one more offline would make Ceph very unhappy!!!....

Anyway, both test updates applied to my test host and I haven't managed to break anything yet!!! So looks good from my point of view.

@michael2z Yes, I get 7.20.0-7 on Linux (Debian 10).

@impovich just saying 50gb is quite big for TrueNAS, but not a problem.