this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
89 points (92.4% liked)

Selfhosted

52744 readers
591 users here now

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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
89
I keep waffling on Proxmox. Sell me. For or against. (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 days ago by chazwhiz@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In the next ~6 months I’m going to entirely overhaul my setup. Today I have a NUC6i3 running Home Assistant OS, and a NUC8i7 running OpenMediaVault with all the usual suspects via Docker.

I want to upgrade hardware significantly, partially because I’d like to bring in some local LLM. Nothing crazy, 1-8B models hitting 50tps would make me happy. But even that is going to mean a beefy machine compared to today, which will be nice for everything else too of course.

I’m still all over the place on hardware, part of what I’m trying to decide is whether to go with a single machine for everything or keep them separate.

Idea 1 is a beefy machine and Proxmox with HA in a VM, OMV or TrueNAS in another, and maybe a 3rd straight Debian to separate all the Docker stuff. But I don’t know if I want to add the complexity.

Idea 2 would be beefy machine for straight OMV/TrueNAS and run most stuff there, and then just move HA over to the existing i7 for more breathing room (mostly for Frigate, which could also separate to other machine I guess).

I hear a lot of great things about Proxmox, but I’m not sold that it’s worth the new complexity for me. And keeping HA (which is “critical” compared to everything else) separated feels like a smart choice. But keeping it on aging hardware diminishes that anyway, so I don’t know.

Just wanting to hear various opinions I guess.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FiduciaryOne@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I like ProxMox too, I'm quite happy that I dove in with it. Just one word of warning - if you mount a drive volume in a container, destroy the container and restore it from a backup, it wipes out the mounted drive. I, uh, lost a bunch of data that way. Not super important data, but still.

I'm still glad I went with ProxMox though. It makes spinning up something a breeze, and I also went with HA in a VM, and another Debian VM for Docker, and a bunch of random LXCs.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is this separate from a bind mount? Cause that doesn't happen with bind mounts.

[–] FiduciaryOne@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, not a bind mount. There was a warning, but I was restoring a ton of LXCs and clicked through the warning too fast. My fault, I'm not super sore about it, just warning others as a service to prevent what happened to me!

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Fair enough!

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you can replicate it, you should really file a bug report so that the next guy doesn't lose data.

[–] stankmut@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It tells you it will happen when you use the restore backup feature.