Selfhosted

40487 readers

578 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:

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
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Splitting Docker between SSD and HDD (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by Naate@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm in the process of planning upgrades for my server, and I'm trying to figure out the "best" drive configuration for Docker. My general understanding would be that the containers should be running from an SSD, and any storage (images, videos, documents) should use a volume on an HDD.

Is it as simple as changing the data-root to point to the SSD, and keep my external volumes on the HDD as defined in my existing compose files? I've already moved data-root once b/c the OverlayFS was chewing up the limited space on the OS drive, so that process isn't daunting.

If there's a better way to configure Docker, I'm open to it, as long as it doesn't require rebuilding everything from scratch.

For reference, the server is running Debian Bookworm on an older i5 3400 with 32GB RAM.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Naate@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For the most part, this old bucket is doing just fine with probably more than I should be throwing at it.

I'm curious as to why proxmox and VMs over a minimal Debian install with docker containers, though? At least, from my understanding, proxmox would be requiring a lot more hardware overhead when I'm mostly just running emby/jellyfin, nextcloud, homeassistant (and related services) and frigate (with a coral).

It's definitely a lot, but I also rarely see cpu use over 70% (typically much lower), though frigate likes to cause problems occasionally. And I've never seen a concerning amount of ram usage.

Definitely getting one of those little n100s soon, and will probably move the home automation stuff over there, and slowly transition the current box into being a nas and nothing more.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Segmentation really. KVM doesn't have a not of overhead but with Proxmox you can separate out everything easier. Also it makes moving services between machines very easy. When moving you might end up with a few dropped packets but the VM will stay running as it moves to a different machine.

[–] Naate@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. I'll dig a little more then. Most of my vm experience has been on desktop for various reasons, and it's almost always been a pain in the ass and not worth the effort.

I assume the kvm stuff can be running a minimal os, sort of like an alpine docker image?

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

It runs Proxmox as the base