I recently asked about an alternative to Google Drive, and someone mentioned Synology. After some digging, I came across xpenology.
Since I already have an Intel NUC (proxmox), I decided to give it a go and got it successfully setup in a dedicated VM.
Now that Synology looks very powerful, I decided to go with it while also planing to upgrade my current NUC setup from 250GB ssd/750GB HD to 2tb nvme/2tb SSD.
While doing that, I was wondering whether I should keep my current VM (fedora) that runs some docker services like proxmox portainer, reverse-proxy, blocky, etc or whether I should move these to the xpenology VM.
Edit: I just realized, my comment was confusing due to a typo… To clarify: I run proxmox on bare-metal and have two VMs in there, Fedora and xpenology. So in short, is the Fedora VM redundant while having a powerfull synology OS already running?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
Fewer Letters More Letters NAS Network-Attached Storage NUC Next Unit of Computing brand of Intel small computers RAID Redundant Array of Independent Disks for mass storage VNC Virtual Network Computing for remote desktop access
4 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 10 acronyms.
[Thread #250 for this sub, first seen 29th Oct 2023, 14:55] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
The synology stuff is neat but I personally wouldn’t use it. There’s a lot of stuff that is abstracted away from you and when you run into a problem it’s not easy to resolve. Plus you’re already running things that can do more.
If you want something like it casaos would be worth a look. You just take a base install of Debian 12 and run their script on it. You’ll get the ease of use that synology has without it fighting you when you want to do something different.
Once you have that going it’s just as simple as getting next cloud going and anything else you want. Which is just one click in the webui. It can manage all the containers you have running on the Fedora vm too. So your reverse proxy, blocky, etc shouldn’t be a problem to run on there.
Unless you REALLY want the synology apps and stuff like that. If that’s the case they go with xpenoloy.
I’d really prefer to avoid NextCloud, since it was very slow, in comparison to Synology, on the same hardware.
But thx for the hint abaout casaos. Didn’t know about that. Will definitely have a look at it.
I’ve found nextcloud to be slow too when dealing with 10s of GB or more of data. Anything less that seems to be fine. I don’t use it myself for that reason.
I would also not recommend running essentially a cracked server OS handling maybe your most important files.
If you insist to use some Synology application there is this solution:
I tried that… although I had some issues setting it up.
What’s funny, I thought this would be the hacky solution, while xpenology being the real deal.
They are both hacky, but the Docker image is only handling the tasks you want it too, not the whole system, so if it goes haywire it’s not as bad.
you’re right… I’m already evaluating it now.
Why not install proxmox on the bare metal of the NUC, then add VMs and containers inside of Proxmox for your reverse proxy, blocky, and other services? Maybe this is what you are doing and I just don’t understand.
I have Proxmox installed on bare metal in my primary home lab server. I also run a Synology NAS on the side. I’m not running Synology Drive for any clients, but I’ve set it up for others before, and it works great in this configuration.
Sorry, due to a typo, there’s some confusion. I do run proxmox bare-metal, with 2 VMs: Fedora, xpenology.
Im running xpenology bare metal installation and im very Happy with it. Allready replaced 2 dead Drives from RAID 6 all working good. It saves me a lot of Time. For example unraid was very nice Bad Had some issues i did Not expect.
I’m noodling a plan to do something similar because my synology NAS is running out of space.
But my plan was to have bare metal run proxmox and have xpenology in a proxmox-managed VM.
I’m very much an amateur tinkerer, here, but it’s been my impression that proxmox is a vastly more powerful VM manager than xpenology.
Even in your current setup I’m surprised you don’t have proxmox managing your fedora instance.
I’ve played with proxmox only a little so far, but it seems like it’s purpose-built to be that base-level layer managing everything running on top of it.
Even things like being able to log into each system right in the browser without messing with VNC or some other virtual desktop tool is just baked in.
….but now I wonder if I got the wrong end of the stick here…?
Hoping people who know better than me will weigh in!
Maybe my comment might be a bit misunderstanding, but I do run my Fedora VM within proxmox too. So, I have two VMs, Fedora and Xpenology.
I was just wondering whether the additional VM makes even sense to have it running alongside XP.
