Quick overview of my setup: Synology NAS running a whole bunch of Docker containers and a couple of full blown VMs, and an N100 based mini PC running Ubuntu Server for those containers that benefit from hardware acceleration.

On the NAS I have a Linux Mint VM that I use for various desktoppy things, but performance via RDP or NoMachine and so on is just bad. I think it’s ultimately due to the lack of acceleration, so I’d like to try running it from the mini PC instead but I’m struggling to find hypervisor options.

VirtualBox can be done headless, apparently, but the package installed via Apt wants to install X/Wayland and the entire desktop experience. LXC looks like it might be a viable option with its web frontend but it appears to be conflicting with Docker atm and won’t run the setup.

Another option is to redo the machine with UnRaid or TrueNAS Scale but as they’re designed to be full fledged NAS OSes I don’t love that idea.

So what would you do? Does anyone have a similar setup with advice?

Thanks all!

Edit: Thanks for everyone’s comments. I still can’t get LXC to work, which is a shame because it has a nice web frontend, so I’ll give KVM a go as my next option. Failing that I might well backup my Docker volumes, blat the whole thing and see what Proxmox can do.

Edit 2: Webtop looks to be exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again for everyone’s help and suggestions.

  • catloafEnglish
    41·
    2 months ago

    You want KVM.

    But I’d check the performance on the NAS first. They’re not really built for VMs so you might be missing hardware features, but I’d check resource usage to see if you’re maxing anything out. And try reducing resolution, color depth, etc. to make it easier.

    • TedZanzibar@feddit.ukOPEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Well indeed, that’s why I want to move the VM off the NAS and onto something with some hardware acceleration. Are there any remote frontend options for KVM?

      • Scott@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        Proxmox has a full webui with almost every feature you could want, except for some more advanced zfs features

        • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.businessEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          Should ask what platform here, IMO: virt-manager is Linux-only. (Or, I suppose, doing remote X stuff to run it elsewhere but that’s probably not what OP is after.)

          There’s some command line stuff you can run on Windows, but then at that point, you can just use virsh on the host itself.

          I’m of the opinion that virsh to manage and then a spice or vnc client to access the VMs is the “best” way to go so you’re not tied down to having to have a specific OS running a specific tool in order to do any admin stuff, since I mean, after you deploy how often are you screwing with the VM settings?

          • BearOfaTimeEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            Good point about platform agnostic remote for management stuff. VNC is ideal for this.

            And systems like Proxmox use a web GUI for most stuff, it’s a touch slow but I think that’s mostly just waiting for the system to finish the actual changes I make, and not the UI.

            • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.businessEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              I’ve never liked web UIs that have that level of permissions to screw around with the OS it’s hosted on.

              Maybe that’s just some grumpy greybeard thing, but I’d really rather not have a single management plane that has full access to EVERYTHING, since that just feels like you’re one configuration oopsie away from some guy in Albania (<3 you, Albania) uploading all his hentai to your server and then trying to hack the FBI or some shit. (Or, you know, the much more boring oops-i’m-a-zombie-now outcome.)

        • just_another_person@lemmy.worldEnglish
          24·
          2 months ago

          Why would this person want KVM? They don’t need anything a full VM provides, they’re just trying to run many services easily on a single host.

          • catloafEnglish
            21·
            2 months ago

            They already have several VMs, containers, and want a full desktop on one. If it sounded like going down to one physical server would be appropriate, I would have recommended it. But condensing whatever they’ve got now would be a huge pain, especially if they find out it doesn’t work and they have to start over and go back to VMs and containers.

              • catloafEnglish
                61·
                2 months ago

                It’s not needed because it’s currently mostly working for them? You’re going to need to use full sentences if you want to communicate, I’m afraid.