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?
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!
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.
Rules:
Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
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.