XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. john.c
    3. Posts
    J
    Offline
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 14
    • Posts 329
    • Groups 0

    Posts

    Recent Best Controversial
    • RE: New Rust Xen guest tools

      @yann said in New Rust Xen guest tools:

      @john.c OK, that will be useful when the repo is signed, but for now I don't see what adverse effect it can have. Do I miss something?

      Also we try to avoid breaking support for older OS versions, so we'll likely continue to advertise the old format for older versions of Debian.

      @yann From Debian 13.0.0 (code name Trixie) having repository signing is mandatory. Without it apt will straight refuse to install, update or upgrade its packages.

      Also doing with deb822 format will help to protect the GPG Key, used by Vates from abuse by another repository. Especially if that repository is hosting malware laden deb packages. As only the Vates repository can then use that signing key, as defined in the sources file.

      Refusing to install, update or upgrade is an adverse effect wouldn’t you say?

      posted in Development
      J
      john.c
    • RE: New Rust Xen guest tools

      @yann Though the deb822 format allows for that file in sources format, to have the signing key tied to that file’s specified repositories. Very important as it ensures that the key is only used by that repository, unless otherwise specified. The old format typically tends to apply that key to all repositories. So even repositories which shouldn’t use it could, worse the key was trusted for all repositories by the client.

      In the new format the repositories can have the specific key tied to them, on the client side as well as the server side.

      posted in Development
      J
      john.c
    • RE: worker exited with code 1 and signal null

      Sometimes it when asking questions as well as hallucinating ChatGPT, can respond with results based on old versions (not updated for an up to date code base).

      So if any past in development or experimental code branch, had its code and was mistakenly released. Then the mistake was found and fixed, it can have found its way into the training data set.

      Can also be an example of training data set poisoning, forcing it to give misleading or mistaken responses, due to it hallucinating as a result.

      posted in Backup
      J
      john.c
    • RE: DevOps Megathread: what you need and how we can help!

      @manilx I have proposed to the IaC team of Vates, a MCP Server for Vates VMS. Which can be used by GitHub Copilot or similar, if used when doing IaC etc.

      posted in Infrastructure as Code
      J
      john.c
    • RE: XCP-ng 8.3 updates announcements and testing

      @manilx said in XCP-ng 8.3 updates announcements and testing:

      @gduperrey Installed at HomeLab. No issues.
      Running via
      yum clean metadata ; yum update

      You must have been looking forward to this improvement for quite a while. Once it reaches the point where it can be rolled into production, your AMD Epyc servers will get to see a boost, the Linux guests any way.

      posted in News
      J
      john.c
    • RE: DevOps Megathread: what you need and how we can help!

      @nathanael-h said in DevOps Megathread: what you need and how we can help!:

      @john.c Why not, can you share what would be the first tools to support and your use cases? I assume that if you are working in VSCode you might be useing some infrastructure as code, like Terraform or Pulumi or Ansible, isn't? In these case do you also have some related MCP servers enabled?

      @nathanael-h Pulumi for the infrastructure as code, with the code held on a private GitHub repository.

      To aid in writing the IaC code as well as helping with provisioning VMs etc.

      As well as during development of full stack website projects.

      The appropriate servers are already enabled and configured, for GitHub Copilot use.

      Visual Studio Code with GitHub Copilot.

      posted in Infrastructure as Code
      J
      john.c
    • RE: DevOps Megathread: what you need and how we can help!

      @olivierlambert Another useful item to aid in development processes and IaC operations. Is when using GitHub Copilot an MCP Server which will interface with the Vates VMS stack, so the agent can get context related to requests (queries). That way its responses can be properly grounded in the context of the stack, as well as the configuration, setup of the Vates VMS installation and its available resources.

      Can the IaC team work on this, though may need other teams help?

      posted in Infrastructure as Code
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Import from VMware - Uploaded VDDK, now stuck on 'checking'

      @JCS-RVK said in Import from VMware - Uploaded VDDK, now stuck on 'checking':

      I have a new xcp-ng pool with two hosts using XO from sources . I went to import a VM from VMware and was prompted to upload a Broadcom VDDK archive. After uploading, the Import from VMware page just shows 'checking'. Past pools I've set up did not prompt for the VDDK, which makes this scenario seem odd to me. Any idea why this is happening and what I can do about it?

      Screenshot 2025-08-27 113113.png

      The VDDK prompt when going VMware to Vates migration, is something new. This when perfected will enable more reliable migrations, as the vSphere API method is very flaky indeed. Especially when considering, issues involving Broadcom’s and previously VMware’s alterations to that API.

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      @DustinB said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @john.c So hypothetical issues that may require paid support for a testbed is your concern. Is that correct?

      XOCE is alright for test bed, but outside of this in a production environment the use of XOA appliance is likely required.

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      @cichy How things go with this switch from VMware, to Proxmox now to Vates VMS. Can potentially impact the software part of the architectural solutions, Hok+ provides your clients. Especially when implementing AI!

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      @DustinB said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @cichy said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @john.c correct. It's the auto updates and automations that come with the appliance that I am after. I believe the trial is only one month? Or possibly only 15 days? The support element is mostly irrelevant to me/us. I do a fair bit of automation via Ansible/Terraform, so developing our own unique library of Templates is ideal. Again, new to all this. So, it may just be that I've not come across this within my XO from "sources" build

      Take a look at my provide or lookup Jarli01 on GitHub if you want a simple yet effective installation and maintenance approach to installing and managing XOCE.

      @DustinB They mentioned needing the updates and related automations. Also given the size of the organisation that they are working for, they’ll likely need the QA of XOA in production.

      If you check out Hok+ (https://www.hok.com/) website then scroll down, to the bottom they list all of their offices around the world. Also you can get statistics about the numbers of employees.

      @cichy Am I correct about the above please?

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      @cichy said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @john.c thanks again for all this info!

      I plan to meet up with the team this week to assess our objectives and KPI's; in the meantime, all of the above has helped tremendously. I'm currently messing around with establishing K8S + Swarm clusters, testing the automation capabilities, XCP-ng is proving to be quite flexible. Learning the nuances of dynamic resource allocation (CPU/RAM, etc.), there are some nuanced differences from vSphere/Proxmox.

      Again, thanks very much for your help. I've made note of all your comments above. Especially references to Terraform/Vault alternatives! These are gold.

      @cichy Also there’s a SR maintenance mode available, something useful for when work needs to be done, on bare metal shared storage.

      By the way when your personal notebook blog is fully operational, I would love to subscribe to receive notifications of updates. As we we’ll likely be able to learn from each other.

      Was on Saturday 9th August 2025 following the release of Debian 13.0.0 (code name “Trixie”).

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      @cichy Additionally you can use XO Proxy, for multi-site instances of Vates VMS (https://vates.tech/xen-orchestra-proxy/). Plus the items for Terraform etc are in the DevOps add-on (https://vates.tech/devops-tools).

      Given your multiple offices around the world you’ll likely have, multiple servers and/or hosts at each location. So XO Proxy or site VPN links will be a must.

      XO Proxy would for the Xen Orchestra related activities be most useful. It will make handling operations like backup, much easier with the proxies performing actions on the remote sites. Less load on the central Xen Orchestra instance!

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @cichy said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @john.c said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @cichy said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @john.c correct. It's the auto updates and automations that come with the appliance that I am after. I believe the trial is only one month? Or possibly only 15 days? The support element is mostly irrelevant to me/us. I do a fair bit of automation via Ansible/Terraform, so developing our own unique library of Templates is ideal. Again, new to all this. So, it may just be that I've not come across this within my XO from "sources" build.

      To your point - I was referring to XO Community = to XO Sources.

      We may be unique in our internal policies to test for min 9-12 months prior to subscription? Proxmox licensing worked very well for us, because even when our three node HA edge cluster was in production, we were still able to license per the lowest tier which mad the whole stack so much more financially viable. I think we have 2/3 nodes on basic licensing and 1 may even be on Community! We are very technically savvy bunch that has managed to get by on this thus far. 🤓

      Thanks for the comments/feedback. Much appreciated!

      @cichy Though do note that you can make your case to Vates staff, during the trial if you find you don’t have enough time to test. Just don’t string them along by gaming the trial offer, to the point it becomes of infinite length, in a similar fashion to another organisation which won’t be named.

      Also Netdata is a valuable plugin available in the appliance version of Xen Orchestra (XOA). A useful part of any monitoring solution.

      The updating functionality in Xen Orchestra has recently gained the capability to be scheduled to run regularly. Finally in the last couple of months, Vates has completely re-done the backup feature in Xen Orchestra. If your workplace operates in regulated industry or policies are for air gapped infrastructure then Vates have most definitely got you covered with Pro and Enterprise plans!!

      The XO Hub feature is only available to the appliance version as it is tied, to the Vates IT infrastructure. As well as likely the user account. Another feature present in the appliance version is the capacity for your Xen Orchestra settings, to be synchronised against the Vates account!

      You may be very technically minded and/or your team, but as you state your new to the Vates VMS stack. Your access to their paid support, through the subscription support plan will pay for itself. Additionally your supporting (funding) future work on the software Vates releases. They can help you track down issues, as developers and thus root out what causes problems. Plus as members of the Xen Project and through that Linux Foundation, this will likely prove valuable - influence on future development.

      If you pay yearly and sufficient multiple years, you’ll have the following based on choice made:-

      • 1 Year - No Savings
      • 3 Years - Up to 10% Savings in 3 years
      • 5 Years - Up to 15% Savings in 5 years

      Check the comparison between the plans it will show what you’re getting for what’s being paid. Also note that as new things are added at particular levels, on the paid plans they will become available to you when ready and available. This is based on update channel and plan chosen.

      With Proxmox your paying per cpu socket, potentially including per host and this is per year. However with Vates VMS on the most basic plans, per year and on higher ones per host per year. No having to deal with costs, per cpu socket or core with Vates. Thus more predictable costs, thus making it much cheaper for you in the long run!!

      So if you have an infrastructure of no more than 3 hosts max depending on requirements, then either Essentials or Essentials+. However more than 3 hosts requires you to go for either Pro or Enterprise plans. Note that Enterprise plan requires a minimum of 4 hosts!

      This is all incredibly helpful. Thank you!

      I will keep testing and then reach out to Vates once I have assessed the qty of servers I’ll be migrating to the new infra.

      One question: were you referring to “Netbox” integration? Currently using this to keep track of everything from rack (multiple) to power to server builds (GPU, drives, ram, cpu, etc). If that can be fully automated, it may be worth the cost alone!

      Yes can be fully automated with Netbox, when coupled with Snipe-IT software, or the new extra modules for Netbox.

      Checkout OpenTofu and OpenBAO both will be valuable and useful. OpenTofu is a fork of HashiCorp Terraform. There’s an official Vates module for OpenTofu. While OpenBao is a fork of HashiCorp Vault.

      There’s a in preview module to allow PowerShell scripting remote management, on Windows or other workstations with it installed.

      @cichy Depending on the size of infrastructure etc. Were you making use of the power efficiency feature in VMware? If so make sure you let them know, as will help to set priorities of any relevant features in the back log.

      There’s a REST API available and in active development for XOA. Also has web hooks support to aid automation. Make sure you check out Vates blogs on XO6 development and recent AI blog posts. Given what you do, would be very much of interest!

      In the matter of NetBox avoid using Essentials (non plus) plan then, it only is available from Essentials+ upwards, when on XOA (appliance). With XO:CE it’s available from the start.

      The NetBox integration works by syncing tags set on Xen Orchestra, as well as other things which are covered by the integration. You can get Snipe-IT plugins for NetBox and vice versa, alternatively you can use Netbox Lab’s Discovery add-on NetBox module with it. Will discover and document everything on the infrastructure!!

      Xen Orchestra NetBox integration handled the Vates VMS related parts (including VMs and XCP-ng Hosts).

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      @cichy said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @john.c said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @cichy said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @john.c correct. It's the auto updates and automations that come with the appliance that I am after. I believe the trial is only one month? Or possibly only 15 days? The support element is mostly irrelevant to me/us. I do a fair bit of automation via Ansible/Terraform, so developing our own unique library of Templates is ideal. Again, new to all this. So, it may just be that I've not come across this within my XO from "sources" build.

      To your point - I was referring to XO Community = to XO Sources.

      We may be unique in our internal policies to test for min 9-12 months prior to subscription? Proxmox licensing worked very well for us, because even when our three node HA edge cluster was in production, we were still able to license per the lowest tier which mad the whole stack so much more financially viable. I think we have 2/3 nodes on basic licensing and 1 may even be on Community! We are very technically savvy bunch that has managed to get by on this thus far. 🤓

      Thanks for the comments/feedback. Much appreciated!

      @cichy Though do note that you can make your case to Vates staff, during the trial if you find you don’t have enough time to test. Just don’t string them along by gaming the trial offer, to the point it becomes of infinite length, in a similar fashion to another organisation which won’t be named.

      Also Netdata is a valuable plugin available in the appliance version of Xen Orchestra (XOA). A useful part of any monitoring solution.

      The updating functionality in Xen Orchestra has recently gained the capability to be scheduled to run regularly. Finally in the last couple of months, Vates has completely re-done the backup feature in Xen Orchestra. If your workplace operates in regulated industry or policies are for air gapped infrastructure then Vates have most definitely got you covered with Pro and Enterprise plans!!

      The XO Hub feature is only available to the appliance version as it is tied, to the Vates IT infrastructure. As well as likely the user account. Another feature present in the appliance version is the capacity for your Xen Orchestra settings, to be synchronised against the Vates account!

      You may be very technically minded and/or your team, but as you state your new to the Vates VMS stack. Your access to their paid support, through the subscription support plan will pay for itself. Additionally your supporting (funding) future work on the software Vates releases. They can help you track down issues, as developers and thus root out what causes problems. Plus as members of the Xen Project and through that Linux Foundation, this will likely prove valuable - influence on future development.

      If you pay yearly and sufficient multiple years, you’ll have the following based on choice made:-

      • 1 Year - No Savings
      • 3 Years - Up to 10% Savings in 3 years
      • 5 Years - Up to 15% Savings in 5 years

      Check the comparison between the plans it will show what you’re getting for what’s being paid. Also note that as new things are added at particular levels, on the paid plans they will become available to you when ready and available. This is based on update channel and plan chosen.

      With Proxmox your paying per cpu socket, potentially including per host and this is per year. However with Vates VMS on the most basic plans, per year and on higher ones per host per year. No having to deal with costs, per cpu socket or core with Vates. Thus more predictable costs, thus making it much cheaper for you in the long run!!

      So if you have an infrastructure of no more than 3 hosts max depending on requirements, then either Essentials or Essentials+. However more than 3 hosts requires you to go for either Pro or Enterprise plans. Note that Enterprise plan requires a minimum of 4 hosts!

      This is all incredibly helpful. Thank you!

      I will keep testing and then reach out to Vates once I have assessed the qty of servers I’ll be migrating to the new infra.

      One question: were you referring to “Netbox” integration? Currently using this to keep track of everything from rack (multiple) to power to server builds (GPU, drives, ram, cpu, etc). If that can be fully automated, it may be worth the cost alone!

      @cichy Yes can be fully automated with Netbox, when coupled with Snipe-IT software, or the new extra modules for Netbox.

      Checkout OpenTofu and OpenBAO both will be valuable and useful. OpenTofu is a fork of HashiCorp Terraform. There’s an official Vates module for OpenTofu. While OpenBao is a fork of HashiCorp Vault.

      There’s a in preview module to allow PowerShell scripting remote management, on Windows or other workstations with it installed.

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      @cichy said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @john.c correct. It's the auto updates and automations that come with the appliance that I am after. I believe the trial is only one month? Or possibly only 15 days? The support element is mostly irrelevant to me/us. I do a fair bit of automation via Ansible/Terraform, so developing our own unique library of Templates is ideal. Again, new to all this. So, it may just be that I've not come across this within my XO from "sources" build.

      To your point - I was referring to XO Community = to XO Sources.

      We may be unique in our internal policies to test for min 9-12 months prior to subscription? Proxmox licensing worked very well for us, because even when our three node HA edge cluster was in production, we were still able to license per the lowest tier which mad the whole stack so much more financially viable. I think we have 2/3 nodes on basic licensing and 1 may even be on Community! We are very technically savvy bunch that has managed to get by on this thus far. 🤓

      Thanks for the comments/feedback. Much appreciated!

      @cichy Though do note that you can make your case to Vates staff, during the trial if you find you don’t have enough time to test. Just don’t string them along by gaming the trial offer, to the point it becomes of infinite length, in a similar fashion to another organisation which won’t be named.

      Also Netdata is a valuable plugin available in the appliance version of Xen Orchestra (XOA). A useful part of any monitoring solution.

      The updating functionality in Xen Orchestra has recently gained the capability to be scheduled to run regularly. Finally in the last couple of months, Vates has completely re-done the backup feature in Xen Orchestra. If your workplace operates in regulated industry or policies are for air gapped infrastructure then Vates have most definitely got you covered with Pro and Enterprise plans!!

      The XO Hub feature is only available to the appliance version as it is tied, to the Vates IT infrastructure. As well as likely the user account. Another feature present in the appliance version is the capacity for your Xen Orchestra settings, to be synchronised against the Vates account!

      You may be very technically minded and/or your team, but as you state your new to the Vates VMS stack. Your access to their paid support, through the subscription support plan will pay for itself. Additionally your supporting (funding) future work on the software Vates releases. They can help you track down issues, as developers and thus root out what causes problems. Plus as members of the Xen Project and through that Linux Foundation, this will likely prove valuable - influence on future development.

      If you pay yearly and sufficient multiple years, you’ll have the following based on choice made:-

      • 1 Year - No Savings
      • 3 Years - Up to 10% Savings in 3 years
      • 5 Years - Up to 15% Savings in 5 years

      Check the comparison between the plans it will show what you’re getting for what’s being paid. Also note that as new things are added at particular levels, on the paid plans they will become available to you when ready and available. This is based on update channel and plan chosen.

      With Proxmox your paying per cpu socket, potentially including per host and this is per year. However with Vates VMS on the most basic plans, per year and on higher ones per host per year. No having to deal with costs, per cpu socket or core with Vates. Thus more predictable costs, thus making it much cheaper for you in the long run!!

      So if you have an infrastructure of no more than 3 hosts max depending on requirements, then either Essentials or Essentials+. However more than 3 hosts requires you to go for either Pro or Enterprise plans. Note that Enterprise plan requires a minimum of 4 hosts!

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng

      @cichy said in Pre-Setup for Migration of 75+ VM's from Proxmox VE to XCP-ng:

      @nikade thanks for your question!

      Just out of curiosity, why are you migrating from proxmox to xcp-ng? Are you ex. vmware?
      We used both vmware and xcp-ng for a long time and xcp-ng is was the obvious alternative for us for workloads that we didn't want in our vmware environment, mostly because of using shared storage and the general similarities.

      So, in short, yes. Ex-VMWare. Though, we are still running VMW on core infrastructure - no way to escape this. I am investigating XCP-ng because I'm primarily looking for cost effective 'edge' and/or 'ai' hypervisor infra solutions. Initially, I used Harvester (by SUSE) for its flexible composability and Kubevirt integration -- we were orchestrating Windows clients for scalable (400+ simul users) viz app. Unfortunately Harvester's UI AND CLI lack a lot of base and common functionality required in our use case. So, I leaned in on Proxmox. After about a year, I've started to realize that although LXC containers are a major convenience, they run directly on dom0, which is absolutely nuts. In addition, ZFS volumes were eating 50% of the system's RAM, etc. Great for a "homelab" not necessarily for production.

      This brings us to how I wound up with XCP-ng. There are certainly functional eccentricities: the XO UI leaves A LOT to be desired. However, outside of this and as I become more comfortable with the way it operates, it is the closest thing to ESXi/vSphere I've used thus far. This in conjunction with my honed K8S && Swarm skills have me thinking I may have just found THE solution I've been looking for!

      I do have a minor gripe, @olivierlambert : currently I am testing this for scaled deployment across the org. BUT, there are no pricing options in the sub $1k range that allow me to test enterprise/production features long-term prior to deploying. We never jump into launching solutions without testing for 9-12 months, at least. So, to spend $4k+ just to POC an edge cluster is nearly impossible to justify as an expense. I am currently using XO Community but have already run into the paywall with certain features I want to test 'long-term' - prior to deployment.

      Thanks for your assistance! It looks like I'll be pretty active here until I iron everything out and gradually start diving in a littler deeper and migrate VM's off of Proxmox and into XCP-ng.

      🙏

      @cichy Are you already on From The Sources? If you are is it the lack of net data or XO Hub which are what you are referring to? Have tried an XOA trial the Vates staff may be willing to extend it, if you make your case. During the trial you get the Enterprise Edition of Xen Orchestra as an appliance, with support and updates. Which should give you enough time to test the software with all features, including those which are paywalled.
      @olivierlambert Some people outside of these forums refer to Xen Orchestra compiled From The Sources as XO: CE (Community Edition).

      posted in Migrate to XCP-ng
      J
      john.c
    • RE: XCP-ng 8.3 updates announcements and testing

      I don’t have AMD based hosts for XCP-ng. However may I suggest an additional validation test of this change, against Debian 13 when stable is released during or following tomorrow. I recon it should work - newer Linux Kernel version 6.12 series, though can’t be sure! Best check to avoid nasty surprises.

      posted in News
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Xen Orchestra from Sources unreachable after applying XCPng Patch updates

      @JamfoFL said in Xen Orchestra from Sources unreachable after applying XCPng Patch updates:

      @john.c I am able to PING the VM hosting Orchestra with no issues.

      How about trace routing the tcp port using tcptraceroute (Linux) or tracetcp (Windows). Can you run this on the IP Address and port used by Xen Orchestra, from both local address (same machine) and another address (remote machine)?

      Can help to see if there’s an issue in the path to that IP’s TCP Port!

      posted in Xen Orchestra
      J
      john.c
    • RE: Xen Orchestra from Sources unreachable after applying XCPng Patch updates

      @JamfoFL said in Xen Orchestra from Sources unreachable after applying XCPng Patch updates:

      @john.c Yeah, I'll probably have to suck it up and build a new one. However, it should be noted that I've in no way done any kind of odd customizations to Orchestra. When I installed it way back when I followed the explicit instructions right from the https://docs.xen-orchestra.com/installation#from-the-sources site and that was it. I think the instructions were slightly different back then, but I've never done anything other than what is in the instructions... I'm not "sophisticated" enough with Linux flavors to do any kind of tinkering on my own.

      It may be a while till I get a chance to do a complete rebuild... but I'll update here once I've completed!

      How about to the XCP-ng hosts or their network connections?

      posted in Xen Orchestra
      J
      john.c