I'm currently using unRAID to store all of my media files and it's been wonderful.  I haven't had any disk issues, so I haven't (fortunately) needed to utilize some of the great disk replacement features that the unRAID OS provides, but to date, unRAID has been a great OS.

 

I've enjoyed the implementation of docker as it has made it easier to run numerous applications on my NAS/Home Server without needing to run a virtual machine.  Unfortunately, I'm beginning to run into issues where there are certain programs that I want to run which docker does not currently support.  So I'm left with a decision:

 

1. I can keep unRAID but set up a virtual machine once again to run all of the applications.  The key for this would be deciding the hardware resource allocation for the VM since the VM would be doing everything besides storing the files.

 

2. Move on to a new OS like Ubuntu Server or Debian and simply set up something like RAID 5 for disk management and have one OS handle everything.

 

unRAID + Docker has been great, but there are still too many things I want to do with my home server that I'm not able to. 

 

Thoughts?

You have posted this in v5 support.

 

In any case, seems like a lot of trouble to completely change everything. RAID5 especially seems like a lot of trouble (and expense) unless you are really looking for speed.

 

You do know unRAID will let you mix drive sizes and even filesystems? Can't get that with RAID5. I guess if you have really established the amount of storage you need then RAID5 could work for you, but unRAID lets me grow my storage gradually without having to replace everything just to use some larger drives.

Option #1, VM's for the win!

You have posted this in v5 support.

 

In any case, seems like a lot of trouble to completely change everything. RAID5 especially seems like a lot of trouble (and expense) unless you are really looking for speed.

 

You do know unRAID will let you mix drive sizes and even filesystems? Can't get that with RAID5. I guess if you have really established the amount of storage you need then RAID5 could work for you, but unRAID lets me grow my storage gradually without having to replace everything just to use some larger drives.

 

Yeah, I couldn't figure out where to post something that would I imagine be considered a "prospective" unRAID user assuming the decision was made prior to anything.  Is there a better sub forum for this question?  If a mod wants to redirect, I will follow.

 

I will direct specific VM questions to the proper sub forum.

 

I'm still interested in hearing if people thing unRAID is the best choice for something geared more towards being an all-in-one home server rather than a simple file server.

still interested in hearing if people thing unRAID is the best choice for something geared more towards being an all-in-one home server rather than a simple file server.

 

Well see my signature but I would say that running unRAID as the base OS and running VM's is the way to go. I currently have 4 VM's running and 2 Dockers. I replaced one of my laptops with a Windows 8 VM, and another Mac Book Pro with my Mac OS X VM. I replaced an old Dell tower I was using as a router with a pfSense VM. I am also running an Ubuntu Server as well for some headless applications that I needed more control over than the Docker version could give me. So all in all I have completely stopped using 3 computers that used to be on 24/7.

still interested in hearing if people thing unRAID is the best choice for something geared more towards being an all-in-one home server rather than a simple file server.

 

Well see my signature but I would say that running unRAID as the base OS and running VM's is the way to go. I currently have 4 VM's running and 2 Dockers. I replaced one of my laptops with a Windows 8 VM, and another Mac Book Pro with my Mac OS X VM. I replaced an old Dell tower I was using as a router with a pfSense VM. I am also running an Ubuntu Server as well for some headless applications that I needed more control over than the Docker version could give me. So all in all I have completely stopped using 3 computers that used to be on 24/7.

 

What's the thought process in deciding to run a docker rather than running the application within say the Ubuntu VM?

 

Also, let's say you're able to run all of your applications within a single Ubuntu VM, and then use your unRAID base OS as nothing more than a file storage/server.  How do you decide what % of resources to allocate to the Ubuntu VM which will be running the majority of your work?  What does unRAID need to simply store and server files with no other jobs?

What's the thought process in deciding to run a docker rather than running the application within say the Ubuntu VM?

 

Also, let's say you're able to run all of your applications within a single Ubuntu VM, and then use your unRAID base OS as nothing more than a file storage/server.  How do you decide what % of resources to allocate to the Ubuntu VM which will be running the majority of your work?  What does unRAID need to simply store and server files with no other jobs?

I used to run all my applications through the ubuntu VM and didn't use dockers. Then I moved Plex over as a docker and I could tell that it ran better as a docker. I would advise running applications as dockers unless it only makes sense to install them in the VM. My ubuntu VM used to have 2 cores and 4 GB of ram but now that I moved Plex to a docker I just give it 1 core and 1 GB of ram and it runs fine.

What's the thought process in deciding to run a docker rather than running the application within say the Ubuntu VM?

 

Also, let's say you're able to run all of your applications within a single Ubuntu VM, and then use your unRAID base OS as nothing more than a file storage/server.  How do you decide what % of resources to allocate to the Ubuntu VM which will be running the majority of your work?  What does unRAID need to simply store and server files with no other jobs?

I used to run all my applications through the ubuntu VM and didn't use dockers. Then I moved Plex over as a docker and I could tell that it ran better as a docker. I would advise running applications as dockers unless it only makes sense to install them in the VM. My ubuntu VM used to have 2 cores and 4 GB of ram but now that I moved Plex to a docker I just give it 1 core and 1 GB of ram and it runs fine.

 

What type of statistics do you review when determining how to go about allocating resources?

In the linux VM, I installed "htop" and from the terminal I look at the memory and CPU under heavy load times. It is mostly just trial and error.

... and another Mac Book Pro with my Mac OS X VM.

 

How do you access the osx vm ?

 

Do you have screen/keyboard/mouse physically connected to the server hosting the vm ?

 

Or you access it remotely via vnc / apple remote desktop ??

 

... and another Mac Book Pro with my Mac OS X VM.

 

How do you access the osx vm ?

 

Do you have screen/keyboard/mouse physically connected to the server hosting the vm ?

 

Or you access it remotely via vnc / apple remote desktop ??

 

Passthrough GPU, keyboard and mouse. It's essentially a Mac desktop.

I will have to give the VM again and see how it goes.

 

How did you determine that apps ran better in docker than in a VM?

 

Is this a general consensus or just something you've noticed through your own experience?

 

I will have to give the VM again and see how it goes.

 

How did you determine that apps ran better in docker than in a VM?

 

Is this a general consensus or just something you've noticed through your own experience?

 

Well I've personally only compared plex in a VM vs Docker setting. I didn't do any special testing but I could tell that plex was performing better as a Docker, especially while transcoding. I left my other apps in my linux VM because I wrote special scripts in order for the apps to "play nice" together with my setup. It seems like the general consensus is to always run the apps in dockers unless you have a special case.

 

... and another Mac Book Pro with my Mac OS X VM.

 

How do you access the osx vm ?

 

Do you have screen/keyboard/mouse physically connected to the server hosting the vm ?

 

Or you access it remotely via vnc / apple remote desktop ??

 

Passthrough GPU, keyboard and mouse. It's essentially a Mac desktop.

 

I see from your signature that you have a OSX vm and a Windows 8 vm. I understand that they run under separate GPUs.

 

Have you tried passing through the same GPU for both vms ?

 

It would be as if you had a dual booting machine, since you could then share monitor, keyboard and mouse.

I see from your signature that you have a OSX vm and a Windows 8 vm. I understand that they run under separate GPUs.

 

Have you tried passing through the same GPU for both vms ?

 

It would be as if you had a dual booting machine, since you could then share monitor, keyboard and mouse.

You cannot pass through the same GPU to 2 VM's at the same time. I do pass through my Nvidia card to both my Win 8 and Win 7 VM's but like I said it can only be one at a time. Also, getting a graphics card to pass through to a Mac is a pain in the rear end... I attempted to use my Nvidia with the Mac but it wouldn't work to save it's life. I ended up buying the ATI card and it worked out of the box without messing around with Mac drivers (aka Kexts).

 

I will have to give the VM again and see how it goes.

 

How did you determine that apps ran better in docker than in a VM?

 

Is this a general consensus or just something you've noticed through your own experience?

 

Well I've personally only compared plex in a VM vs Docker setting. I didn't do any special testing but I could tell that plex was performing better as a Docker, especially while transcoding. I left my other apps in my linux VM because I wrote special scripts in order for the apps to "play nice" together with my setup. It seems like the general consensus is to always run the apps in dockers unless you have a special case.

 

My concern with docker is aren't you somewhat relegated to using the docker the way it was created by whoever developed it?  For instance, isn't doing some sort of update on a program not possible rather than running an apt-get update command from the terminal if we were running from ubuntu server?

 

I will have to give the VM again and see how it goes.

 

How did you determine that apps ran better in docker than in a VM?

 

Is this a general consensus or just something you've noticed through your own experience?

 

Well I've personally only compared plex in a VM vs Docker setting. I didn't do any special testing but I could tell that plex was performing better as a Docker, especially while transcoding. I left my other apps in my linux VM because I wrote special scripts in order for the apps to "play nice" together with my setup. It seems like the general consensus is to always run the apps in dockers unless you have a special case.

 

My concern with docker is aren't you somewhat relegated to using the docker the way it was created by whoever developed it?  For instance, isn't doing some sort of update on a program not possible rather than running an apt-get update command from the terminal if we were running from ubuntu server?

See my reply to this same question on your other thread.