I am running a 14 drive (7 used) build with a D510 CPU with 4GB RAM and running a Windows 7 VM (800MB RAM) mainly for torrenting (with https which isn't supported by the utorrent plugin ALPHA version).

Working on the VM is very slow but downloading is just fine.

 

It all depends on what you are doing on the VM - DISK or CPU?

 

Interesting that virtual box runs okay with an Atom ... and a D510 at that.  May just have to give it a try on my D525 

Well I've got virtualbox up and running along with phpvirtualbox without having to ask anyone for help! It feels like quite an accomplishment, though I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.

Well OS X is being a pain. I might figure it out if I beat my head against it for long enough, but it's late and I'm going to bed. If it continues to give me fits, I'm just going to go with Ubuntu and call it a day.

Well I've got virtualbox up and running along with phpvirtualbox without having to ask anyone for help! It feels like quite an accomplishment, though I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.

 

Very good -- and I certainly agree that's a nice accomplishment  :)

 

Now how about a nice, SIMPLE, "cookbook" (step-by-step) outline of exactly what you did for those of us who might do this in the future 

 

[i'm sure I could figure this one out easily enough, but I always like to take the REALLY EASY approach and just learn vicariously !!    I thought this was nothing more than installing the package lainie maintains, but apparently there's a bit more to it.]

 

I'll gladly write a how-to, but it might be tricky. I can explain it well enough, but I can't go back and get screen shots. I think I could repeat what I did, though. Maybe I can build a dummy box or save my config and start over (though that makes me nervous).

I will say one thing...

 

If the point of VM's via virtual of is to reduce unRAID plugins, you haven't considered how many it requires. It takes at least...

 

SF core

SF web server

Virtualbox

 

Plus I may start stripping out non-essentials once the VM is live, but things like auto-email are a big deal to me. SF really provides a lot of useful stuff that I feel belongs in the base unRAID product.

 

You can work without a web server on unraid - you can use a different PC for the web server (when needed) and you can even install the web server on the VM (which will work only when the VM is running of course).

 

Once the VM is configured and installed I hardly ever need to access the phpvirtualbox via the webserver.

 

boof - can RDM work with a datastore and mapped drive on the same controller?  I've never used it before.

Not boof but - Yes.  RDM works on the same controller as a datastore drive.  That is how I have my WHSv1 boot drive/"D-data" drive configured.  It is RDM'd from the MB controller that hosts the datastore for ESXi.  The pool drives are off a passed through controller but the BOOT drive is RDM'd.

You can work without a web server on unraid - you can use a different PC for the web server (when needed) and you can even install the web server on the VM (which will work only when the VM is running of course).

 

Once the VM is configured and installed I hardly ever need to access the phpvirtualbox via the webserver.

Perhaps a web server can be hosted elsewhere, but it still makes the most sense to keep it on the same machine (which will always be up and running).

You can work without a web server on unraid - you can use a different PC for the web server (when needed) and you can even install the web server on the VM (which will work only when the VM is running of course).

 

Once the VM is configured and installed I hardly ever need to access the phpvirtualbox via the webserver.

Perhaps a web server can be hosted elsewhere, but it still makes the most sense to keep it on the same machine (which will always be up and running).

You can fully control vm's from the command line, so it would be easy to have a "management" vm with only vips (very important programs) installed that would be called from the command line after the virtualbox package is installed. As soon as that VM is up and running, you would have full access with phpvirtualbox hosted on that management vm.

 

I also have a script that suspends all running virtualbox vm's, if anybody is interested. The last time I posted, nobody cared. It is useful for unattended shutdowns, like power outages.

You can work without a web server on unraid - you can use a different PC for the web server (when needed) and you can even install the web server on the VM (which will work only when the VM is running of course).

 

Once the VM is configured and installed I hardly ever need to access the phpvirtualbox via the webserver.

Perhaps a web server can be hosted elsewhere, but it still makes the most sense to keep it on the same machine (which will always be up and running).

You can fully control vm's from the command line, so it would be easy to have a "management" vm with only vips (very important programs) installed that would be called from the command line after the virtualbox package is installed. As soon as that VM is up and running, you would have full access with phpvirtualbox hosted on that management vm.

 

I also have a script that suspends all running virtualbox vm's, if anybody is interested. The last time I posted, nobody cared. It is useful for unattended shutdowns, like power outages.

Well when it's explained this way, it makes much more sense to me. I might just build myself a LAMP VM tonight. Anybody got a favorite distro for such a task? I was figuring Ubuntu Server.

As a follow-up to my last post, it would appear that Ubuntu Server can be configured out-of-the-box as a LAMP server upon installation. that could simplify the process. But if there are any better ideas, I'm all ears.

You can work without a web server on unraid - you can use a different PC for the web server (when needed) and you can even install the web server on the VM (which will work only when the VM is running of course).

 

Once the VM is configured and installed I hardly ever need to access the phpvirtualbox via the webserver.

Perhaps a web server can be hosted elsewhere, but it still makes the most sense to keep it on the same machine (which will always be up and running).

You can fully control vm's from the command line, so it would be easy to have a "management" vm with only vips (very important programs) installed that would be called from the command line after the virtualbox package is installed. As soon as that VM is up and running, you would have full access with phpvirtualbox hosted on that management vm.

 

I also have a script that suspends all running virtualbox vm's, if anybody is interested. The last time I posted, nobody cared. It is useful for unattended shutdowns, like power outages.

 

My VirtualBox plugin allows for starting and stopping VMs without phpvirtualbox once they have been defined (does it through the command line).

 

My VirtualBox plugin allows for starting and stopping VMs without phpvirtualbox once they have been defined (does it through the command line).

I noticed that. Quite a handy feature.

My VirtualBox plugin allows for starting and stopping VMs without phpvirtualbox once they have been defined (does it through the command line).

Ok. My script suspends all running vm's. It doesn't care if they've been defined somewhere specific, it just looks for running vm's by whatever name and suspends them until there are none left running, then exits

My VirtualBox plugin allows for starting and stopping VMs without phpvirtualbox once they have been defined (does it through the command line).

Ok. My script suspends all running vm's. It doesn't care if they've been defined somewhere specific, it just looks for running vm's by whatever name and suspends them until there are none left running, then exits

 

My plugin does the same when shutting down or stopping the array.

It also remembers which VMs were running in last shutdown and gives the option to restart these specific VMs automatically when the array powers up/starts.

 

I just finished installing an Ubuntu Server VM and now I'm installing an Ubuntu VM. I've decided that while the Ubuntu Server is nice and light, I don't like strictly command line interfaces. They're just more work for someone like me who isn't totally familiar with Linux. The regular Ubuntu installation, however, looks like it'll be much easier to work with.

If you're going to run plugins/addons/etc on a unraid box, and it can't be done more proficiently on a separate computer? There is absolutely no reason to run unraid on a virtual machine.

 

Run unraid on a virtual machine if you need one computer to be your Domain Controller, your File Server (UnRaid), your Encoding Box, your linux web browsing box ( with a back end using MinG) ... a SQL server etc and so forth.

 

Virtualization is used to split computers of different Operating Systems and different capabilities. It's used to have a virtual separation of computers. It's not used to have 3 computers doing 3 things that one can do as efficiently, and has no reason to be separated.

 

I'll put it this way, if you are familiar with Vlans, and know what or why they'd be used, consider virtualization to be the same as a vlan.

 

 

 

So there are plugins to handle most of the things that I'm interest in doing, but they are tasks that can also be accomplished via virtual machines. Assuming my hardware can handle the workload (Core i5-2500K), which do you prefer and why? The things I'm looking to do are:

 

sabnzbd

sickbeard

Couch Potato

Plex Media Server

btsync

crashplan (looks possible as a plugin, but it's a MAJOR pain)

 

There are plugins for all of the above apps, but I would assume that administration/updating would be easier through a virtual machine. Is that a fair assumption? Also, crashplan (although not compltely necessary for me) looks like a major pain in the butt if does headlessly via plugin.

 

Other things that might come in handy, but I don't really need:

 

iTunes <- requires VM

ownCloud

web server

KC:

 

That's fair, but I want to make sure that everything is stable. If I can separate the complication away from the basic unRAID installation then I've gone a long way towards achieving stability. Plus this gives me GUI's and sandboxes.

And my VM's do have different capabilities:

 

LAMP

media server

download manager

 

... and I can always make more as I see fit. Plus it's a good exercise.

So I actually put down $7/mo and leased a VPS to run ownCloud with 512GB of storage (more than enough for desktop files). That's one less thing to run off the unRAID box. It's a heck of a lot slower since it's online, but it's accessible from everywhere.

 

I'm sure I could set up dynamic DNS and get it working from home, but I don't like messing with my firewall. Been there, done that, and don't really want to do it again. Plus, the network adapters on all the VM's are virtualized so they would have to pass through virtualbox on the unRAID instance (which would be left open to the world). It just doesn't sound like a good idea.

 

Besides, after the initial seed, it's pretty easy to keep everything in sync. And if I ever decide I don't to drop it, I can wipe the the VPS and walk away with no long-term contracts or obligations.

Jumped in a little late on this one it seems, but have you considered just running owncloud on a raspberry pi?  I run owncloud, mail (citadel), and web server(nginx) off mine, works a treat!

Your 2500k doesn't support VT-d. Lack of VT-d eliminates the possibility of passing a SAS/SATA controller through your virtualization server, eliminating any possiblity of data recovery if your virtualization server dies. While you can do a fake-passthrough, i don't recommend it. Performance drops, and the actuality of the drive working natively on a Unraid server drops as well. To be honest, I haven't actually *tested* this scenario. But, I built this server to protect my data, not make it easy.

 

To make a proper Unraid server on any virtualization host, your CPU/MOBO needs to support VT-D (intel) or IO/MMU (AMD)

 

Don't get K series to virtualize. (my desktop is a 2500K. While I love the processor, it's lack of VT-D makes me cry)

 

Check out the ARK here: http://ark.intel.com/products/52210/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

 

 

KC:

 

That's fair, but I want to make sure that everything is stable. If I can separate the complication away from the basic unRAID installation then I've gone a long way towards achieving stability. Plus this gives me GUI's and sandboxes.

Your 2500k doesn't support VT-d. Lack of VT-d eliminates the possibility of passing a SAS/SATA controller through your virtualization server, eliminating any possiblity of data recovery if your virtualization server dies. While you can do a fake-passthrough, i don't recommend it. Performance drops, and the actuality of the drive working natively on a Unraid server drops as well. To be honest, I haven't actually *tested* this scenario. But, I built this server to protect my data, not make it easy.

 

To make a proper Unraid server on any virtualization host, your CPU/MOBO needs to support VT-D (intel) or IO/MMU (AMD)

 

Don't get K series to virtualize. (my desktop is a 2500K. While I love the processor, it's lack of VT-D makes me cry)

 

Check out the ARK here: http://ark.intel.com/products/52210/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

 

 

KC:

 

That's fair, but I want to make sure that everything is stable. If I can separate the complication away from the basic unRAID installation then I've gone a long way towards achieving stability. Plus this gives me GUI's and sandboxes.

I'm not trying to use unRAID as a guest. I'm using it as a host. I don't mean to offend, but it doesn't sound like you've really read through this thread...

Your 2500k doesn't support VT-d. Lack of VT-d eliminates the possibility of passing a SAS/SATA controller through your virtualization server, eliminating any possiblity of data recovery if your virtualization server dies. While you can do a fake-passthrough, i don't recommend it. Performance drops, and the actuality of the drive working natively on a Unraid server drops as well. To be honest, I haven't actually *tested* this scenario. But, I built this server to protect my data, not make it easy.

 

To make a proper Unraid server on any virtualization host, your CPU/MOBO needs to support VT-D (intel) or IO/MMU (AMD)

 

Don't get K series to virtualize. (my desktop is a 2500K. While I love the processor, it's lack of VT-D makes me cry)

 

Check out the ARK here: http://ark.intel.com/products/52210/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

 

 

KC:

 

That's fair, but I want to make sure that everything is stable. If I can separate the complication away from the basic unRAID installation then I've gone a long way towards achieving stability. Plus this gives me GUI's and sandboxes.

I'm not trying to use unRAID as a guest. I'm using it as a host. I don't mean to offend, but it doesn't sound like you've really read through this thread...

But what he said about pass through still goes.  You could pass through devices to a VM in Virtual Box running on unRAID but only if the CPU/Bios/MB supports it.  If you are not passing through anything to a VM running on Virtual Box then your 2500K would work real well.  This assumes you would have compiled your own kernel to support it as I don't think default unRAID would allow pass through.