XOSAN with XO Community edition

DustinB3403

So I just upgraded to xo-web 5.16.1 and it looks like it may be an option.

I'd need to find the cloud plugin though. . .

DustinB3403

But this functionality we had available some time ago, it was access to the "plugin" that was the issue.

Paging @Danp do you remember why we left off on this. It was so long ago I don't recall. Besides just not having access to the GH repo to look at and test this.

Danp

@dustinb3403 said in XOSAN with XO Community edition:

So I just upgraded to xo-web 5.16.1 and it looks like it may be an option.

I've been thinking about this and I wonder if our upgrade process needs to be revises. Since everything is now being committed to the master branch, you actually upgraded to 5.16.1 plus all other commits that have occurred since that time.

Danp

@dustinb3403 said in XOSAN with XO Community edition:

But this functionality we had available some time ago, it was access to the "plugin" that was the issue.

Paging @Danp do you remember why we left off on this. It was so long ago I don't recall. Besides just not having access to the GH repo to look at and test this.

Sorry, but my memory is fuzzy on that issue.

DustinB3403

@danp if I recall, we were able to enable the option for XOSan, but didn't have access to the GH repo as @olivier didn't have it publicly available.

Danp

@dustinb3403 Could be, but isn't there also a separate VM that gets deployed to each XS, etc?

DustinB3403

@danp said in XOSAN with XO Community edition:

@dustinb3403 Could be, but isn't there also a separate VM that gets deployed to each XS, etc?

Yea it has to be created, I was reading what I could find on GH a short while ago but it looks as though some of the documentation is out of date / missing

Danp

@danp said in XOSAN with XO Community edition:

@dustinb3403 said in XOSAN with XO Community edition:

So I just upgraded to xo-web 5.16.1 and it looks like it may be an option.

I've been thinking about this and I wonder if our upgrade process needs to be revises. Since everything is now being committed to the master branch, you actually upgraded to 5.16.1 plus all other commits that have occurred since that time.

@olivier Care to comment on this?

Darek Hamann

You could try using StarWind VSAN Free instead XOSAN for hyperconvergence. Even though they say they do not officially support Xen hyperconverged, it should be technically possible, I believe.

DustinB3403

@darek-hamann said in XOSAN with XO Community edition:

You could try using StarWind VSAN Free instead XOSAN for hyperconvergence. Even though they say they do not officially support Xen hyperconverged, it should be technically possible, I believe.

I'd have to double check on that, I thought I read that every hypervisor is supported as vSAN will run on the VM level rather than at the Hyper-V level if the host isn't running Hyper-V.

olivier

@danp What do you mean? I don't understand.

bnrstnr

@olivier said in XOSAN with XO Community edition:

What do you mean? I don't understand.

My interpretation of his question was whether we need to change the way we do updates because right now the update script only checks for a change in version number, when there are actually other changes committed between version numbers?

Danp

@olivier when I issue the command git clone -b master https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra or git pull --ff-only, isn't that going to pull down the absolute latest source from the repo, including any commits that have occurred since the last "release"?

For example, XO 5.16 was released on 2/1 and there have been over 3800 commits since that time. How would I build a new VM with xo-server 5.16.0 and xo-web 5.16.1 that doesn't include the subsequent commits? Ditto for updating an existing VM.

olivier

@danp This is just because we merged in the mono repo. I don't think there is any issue to pull everything on master.

Danp

@olivier Technically, it's because you no longer use the concept of a next-release branch. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

It just means that everyone could be running a slightly different version unless you are running XOA.

olivier

Yes, we switched to master, but it's been a while now (months?)

Also, it's up to you to decide on what "head" (commit/tag/branch) to follow in your own scripts ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Danp

@olivier Thanks for the feedback.

Ok... so I see that @julien-f just pushed out new versions of xo-server and xo-web. Anyone care to elaborate on how we could properly script this so that a week from now you could pull the source from this particular point in time?

rjt

@DustinB3403 StarWinds webpage does not list Citrix, but
StarWind Virtual SAN FREE vs. PAID AUGUST 2018
has a logo for CitrixReady and lists support for KVM and Xen Project VMs.

"Shared storage for KVM, Citrix XenServer and Xen Project VMs (HA iSCSI & CA SMB 3.1.1)" pg 5.

StarWinds free edition specifically mentions HyperV, Xen, KVM, and
vSphere and even supports Remote Direct Memory Access RDMA for serious disk speed up.

Havent convinced management that $6000 for xosan is much less expensive than vmWare. And cannot prove that xosan is faster without much bigger virtual machine allowances in the trial version.

DustinB3403

@rjt I'm not sure what to look at here. StarWind VSAN has always been available to be used on XenServer, so long as it was deployed on Windows VMs that were on your individual XS hypervisors.

Those VMs would then manage the storage level for you, a costly way to get vSAN, but one that would work for sure.

rjt

@DustinB3403 i was confirming and adding details to your reply to @Darek-Hamann in the number of hypervisors supported. It can be free, so you mean costly as in windows licensing or performance? If performance, i would hope RDMA would solve that.