Best posts made by rtjdamen

@andyh no cbt should be disabled, u can’t migrate an cbt enabled vdi.

You need to remove all snapshots before migration and disable cbt. Storage migration is not supported when cbt is invalid. I believe xoa should do this automatically however.

@florent ok thanks, but how does this work for a job with multiple retentions? if i have a job with 3 schedules and retentions set for this job, how does the sequence handle this, in other words as the retention is set on the schedule level and i disable 1 of 3 schedules, how does the sequence know what retention it should keep?

@Andrew we see the same behavior here, no strange backup issues so far!

Hi all, i can confirm the vdi_in_use error is resolved by https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/pull/7960 we no longer see issues there.

Only remaining issue we see is the “ can’t create a stream from a metadata vdi fall back to base”

fbeauchamp opened this pull request in vatesfr/xen-orchestra

closed feat(backups/CBT): retry data_destroy when error is VDI_IN USE #7960

@olivierlambert i have changed it to V3 and it feels like it is performing normally now. i need to do some more testing but it seems the synology does handle the read/writes better on V3 then V4.

@olivierlambert yes i will check this out as well. The mirror job itself seems to perform well, i changed the nfs to V3 as a first test for now, i read there is more overhead on V4, maybe this will improve things a bit. I will share the results!

@manilx nope, but i have talked with a dev about it and they are looking to make it a setting somewhere, don’t know the status of that. Good to see this works for you!

@julien-f and the stream error?

@olivierlambert, I first want to compliment the work that has been done. As a first release, it already seems very stable. I have shared some logs with support to investigate the data_destroy issue and some minor error messages that appeared. We managed to migrate all our backup jobs to CBT over the weekend. It was challenging to coalesce all the snapshots, but it has been completed. The difference in coalesce speed is significant, which is a great improvement for XOA backups. I will monitor the backups and observe how they evolve in the coming weeks.

Please let us know if you need any additional input or if there are any updates regarding the data_destroy issue.

@Andrew need to do some more testing but second run does clean them out, keep u all posted on the results over the weekend!

All tests with 2 vms were so far succesfull, no issues found in our lab. Good job guys!

@olivierlambert in then end that will be the best, but i am inpressed with the experience of there team on Xen and XCP as well, i think they are a good addition to the allready complete list, to be honest so far there backup tool is doing better then the ones allready on the list.

@olivierlambert ok, is there a way we can keep an eye on this devepment? shall i open a feature request on this with support or what is the best way to proceed?

@olivierlambert, yes, but the snapshot doesn't need to remain till the next job is running. This distinction significantly impacts space requirements. You don't back up all your VMs simultaneously.

So far this seems to work well. we will test this and inform if there is any issue with it. On behalf of my customer i would like to thank you for the quick response!

@DonZalmrol good to hear! Another good migration solved!

@olivierlambert I wanted to comment on this topic, we have migrated around 450 vms in 3 months using this feature, it really was a game changer and without it we were never able to make the step to XCP-NG. during the migration process we saw the feature being improved, overall speed and reliability were great. Compliments on this feature and i think it will help a lot of future customers migrating to XCP-NG.

@crazyadm1n Over the past few months, we transitioned from VMware to XCP. It was a significant project with its challenges, but overall, I'm very satisfied with the move. We didn't utilize many complex VMware features, mainly using iSCSI storage. Within XCP, we tested both NFS and iSCSI, ultimately experiencing much better performance with iSCSI. There are still some improvements to be made in backup, but Vates is working hard on this. I agree with others that Vates' support makes a big difference—they respond quickly and provide the necessary partner support. So far, we are very pleased with the transition. If you have specific questions or issues regarding Windows VMs, let me know; we have gained considerable experience recently.

Hi, we are currently in the process of migration to xcp-ng, In VMWare we have multiple hosts running with different age and specs. I prefer putting these hosts into 1 pool. Currently we use hosts with these types of cpu's

First of all would it be possible to run these in a combined pool? second question is how to proceed, can we just put them all toghether and will the master manage the cpu masking? or is there one specific host we need to start with? I am curious if there is a manual on this proces? It seems that this is missing in the documentation.

What are your thoughts on this?