Warm migration is probably the safest bet in all circumstances because there's no CPU compatibility issues

@nim81 said in Support licensing structure update:

@olivierlambert I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Maybe I have misunderstood the pricing, but from what I can see the new Essentials package is limited to 3 hosts whereas the old ones had no limit. To use the 5 hosts I currently have, I'd be needing the Pro package at $1000 per host, no? Previously I could use the Starter package at $910 with unlimited hosts.

I by no means expect to be given the product for free, but to me it feels like I'm now being forced to buy additional support that I didn't want or need; to my mind I don't think I've ever even put a single support ticket in

I think there is a big misunderstanding. Before our bundle, you had:

• XOA pricing (no support for XCP-ng, just tested/turnkey/stable XOA) with the 3 tiers
• XCP-ng pricing ($600 per host per year for standard, ie 1x business day, $1200 for Enterprise)

So you just decided to not have any support for XCP-ng in the past. XOA support never ever included XCP-ng support. Never.

If you took the support for XCP-ng, it would have cost you at least $3000 just for XCP-ng standard ($6000 with XCP-ng Enterprise) and then you needed to add XOA Starter. So suddenly, comparing apples to apples makes more sense

If you think you don't need actual XCP-ng support, it means the day you have an issue with XCP-ng, you are on your own. It's cool to see you didn't in the past, and I hope you will never have in the future. But who knows? Also, paying for support is far more than just this, it's also supporting the project, which isn't free to handle, now costing around 3 to 4 millions per year to maintain both XO and XCP-ng. So it's a way to be sure the lights will be always on.

There's many options to keep it cheaper, like organizing a pool with 3 hosts and get an Essential plan for example (and not supporting the 2 extra hosts in another pool for example)

I'm AFK for multiple weeks, so I have 0 bandwidth. Please open a ticket, on my side I'm not aware of many similar reports (which would have been easier to fix then)

As separate pool, this won't be a problem at all

Sorry to see you go, but the claim of a 550% price increase is simply incorrect. Previously, you had only XOA Starter, which provided basic access to XO but no support for your XCP-ng hosts.

If you don’t want to pay for XCP-ng support, you still have the option to use Xen Orchestra from the sources, effectively bringing your cost down to zero.

There’s no realistic scenario where both XOA and XCP-ng support could be offered at an equivalent price than XOA Starter. Providing security updates, new features, and continuous improvements for both platforms requires significant effort and resources. Ensuring sustainability while maintaining high-quality software and support is crucial—not just for us, but for the entire community.

That said, we’ve introduced Essential plans specifically for smaller infrastructures, offering great value for up to three hosts. This provides a cost-effective solution while still benefiting from our ongoing development and support.

Don't mix pools between Intel and AMD. Use warm migration to migrate from an Intel to an AMD pool.

That's almost a question for the DevOps Team Tool I suppose

Ping @nathanael-h

Great example on how great the community is and how fast our dev can fix it! Thanks for the feedback, it really matters, as you can see!

FYI, a powershell SDK is about to come in the following weeks, so hang on

Until then, you can use xo CLI: https://docs.xen-orchestra.com/architecture#xo-cli-cli

Hi,

If you really need support, you should go with the professional services This is a community forum, people are here to assist for free, there's no guarantee

Also, please avoiding pinging me directly, I already have too many notifications, if everyone does that, it won't help

IIRC, you can't. @stormi might confirm

Yes, so for that to be done automatically, you can set up "offline backup" option, that will do exactly that

Ah yes, I remember now. You cannot reconnect a vUSB after disconnect. That's a XAPI/XCP-ng limitation.

xe is a XAPI client, like XO is a XAPI client too. The issue with this, is if you have 1 pool it's OK. If you have many pools, it's a lot better to use XO API.

I can't remember if it's in our backlog or if it's already done automatically

Hi,

It's using Node streams, so basically the overall backup process is going at the speed of the slowest remote (thanks to back pressure). Otherwise, it means we would have to store the data in XO memory for example, which isn't really possible for a backup, due to its size.

There's no "release" nor stable version on Github. If you want stability that's why XOA is made for (even if we have a decent track record of getting master correctly working most of the time)

Continuous replication is using export/import mechanism, so I think that's the reason for this task