Selfhosted

Running arr services on a proxmox cluster to download to a device on the same network. I don’t think there would be any problems but wanted to see what changes need to be done.

I'm essentially doing this with my set up. I have a box running proxmox and a separate networked nas device. There aren't really any changes, per se, other than pointing the *arr installs at the correct mounts. One thing to make note of, i would make sure that your download, processing, and final locations are all within the same mount point, so that you can take advantage of atomic moves.

Do two NICs. I have a bigger setup, and it's all running on one LAN, and it is starting to run into problems. Changing to a two network setup from the outset probably would have saved me a lot of grief.

It's 2024, avoid Proxmox and safe yourself a LOT of headaches down the line.

You most likely don’t need Proxmox and its pseudo-open-source bullshit. My suggestion is to simply with with Debian 12 + LXD/LXC, it runs VMs and containers very well. Proxmox ships with an old kernel that is so mangled and twisted that they shouldn’t even be calling it a Linux kernel. Also their management daemons and other internal shenanigans will delay your boot and crash your systems under certain circumstances.

What I would suggest you to use use instead is LXD/Incus.

LXD/Incus provides a management and automation layer that really makes things work smoothly - essentially what Proxmox does but properly done. With Incus you can create clusters, download, manage and create OS images, run backups and restores, bootstrap things with cloud-init, move containers and VMs between servers (even live sometimes).

Another big advantage is the fact that it provides a unified experience to deal with both containers and VMs, no need to learn two different tools / APIs as the same commands and options will be used to manage both. Even profiles defining storage, network resources and other policies can be shared and applied across both containers and VMs.

I draw your attention to containers (not docker), LXC containers because for most people full virtualization isn't even required. In a small homelab if you can have containers that behave like full operating systems (minus the kernel) including persistence, VMs might not be required. Either way LXD/Incus will allow for both and you can easily mix and match and use what you require for each use case.

For eg. I virtualize the official HomeAssistant image with LXD because we all know how hard is to get that thing running, however my NAS / Samba shares are just a LXD Debian 12 container with Samba4, Nginx and FileBrowser. Sames goes for torrent client that has its own container. Some other service I've exposed to the internet also runs a full VM for isolation.

Like Proxmox, LXD/Incus isn’t about replacing existing virtualization techniques such as QEMU, KVM and libvirt, it is about augmenting them so they become easier to manage at scale and overall more efficient. I can guarantee you that most people running Proxmox today it today will eventually move to Incus and never look back. It woks way better, true open-source, no bugs, no BS licenses and way less overhead.

Yes, there's a WebUI for LXD as well!

Use ZFS when prompted - it opens up some features and is a bitch to change later. I don't understand why it's not the default.

I have two Proxmox hosts and two NASes. All are connected at 1Gbps.

The Proxmox hosts maintain the real network mounts - nfs in my case - for the NAS shares. Inside each CT that requires them, these are mapped to mount points with identical paths in each, eg. /storage/nas1 and /storage/nas2.

All my *arr (and downloader) CTs are configured to use the exact same paths.

It's seamless. nzbget or deluge download to the same parent folders that my *arr CTs work with, which means atomic renames/moves are pretty much instant. The only real network traffic is from the download CTs to the NASes.

Edit: my downloader CTs download directly to the NAS paths - no intermediate disk at all.

I have a setup similar to what you want.

My nas is a low powered atom board that runs unraid.

My dockets run on a ryzen CPU with proxmox. I don't have a cluster, just 1.

In proxmox I run a VM that runs a all my dockets.

I use portainer to run all my services as stacks. So the arr stack has all the arrs together in a docker compose file. The docker compose files are stored in gitea (one of the few things I still run on unraid) and Everytime I make a change to the git, I press one button on portainer and it pulls down the latest docker compose.

For storage, on proxmox I use zfs with ssds only. The only thing that needs HDDs is the media on my unraid.

When a docker needs to access the media it uses an NFS mount to the unraid server.

Everything else is on my zfs array on proxmox. I have auto zfs snapshots every hour. Borg backup also takes hourly incremental backups of the zfs array and sends it to the unraid server locally and borg base for off-site backup.

The whole setup works very well and it very stable.

The flexibility of using proxmox means that things that work better in a VM (HaOS) I can install as a VM. Everything else is docker.

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

8 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 8 acronyms.

[Thread #411 for this sub, first seen 8th Jan 2024, 20:15] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

For your Proxmox cluster shoot for three devices. With three devices you can do high availability which is a bonus but not something I though to do when I built my setup.

Consider checking out XCP-ng. I've been testing it for a few days and I'm really enjoying it. Seems less complicated and more flexible than Proxmox but admittedly I'm still learning and haven't even tried multiple servers yet. I would suggest watching some YouTube videos first. Good luck!

With arr services try to limit network throughput and disk throughput on them, as if either are maxed out for too long (like moving big linux iso files) it can cause weird timeouts and failures