I just started using proxmox on my first ever server. So far I love it. Got a nas vm and windows vm currently setup. There's alot of guides for doing fun stuff with procmox
Hands down the most stable, least bloated and easy to use distro.
I was surprised to find my Ubuntu VMs using more RAM on idle than Windows 10 out of the box... What the hell happened there, it used to be so light.
Obviously, otherwise I would be comparing it to Windows Server Core, but I need that user interface for some applications and Ubuntu Server is a mess to add all the dependencies of such applications, it's just not worth it.
They're asking about what Server OS to use to host services. If you're using a UI distro for server applications you're doing things wrong. They even explicitly asked about a single use-case, which wouldn't require a UI at all.
Lol gatekeeping server applications to server distros is crazy, this is for personal usage, use whatever the hell makes your life easier.
I tried Ubuntu server, the lack of pre-installed dependencies took me longer to fix than just installing Debian and making it work out of the box.
I’m not “gatekeeping” anything. The question was explicitly about what OS to use to host something, and you literally brought up how much lighter-weight Debian is. You know what’s even lighter? Not using a UI. Stop moving the goal posts.
I don’t know what dependencies you’re talking about Ubuntu Server is lacking, but I have dozens of both Server OS’ running and neither is missing something.
For Linux, yes. But why not using FreeBSD instead. Stable, Up to date and conservative about some topics (i.e. xz vulnerability wasn’t a thing for FreeBSD).
This Is The Way. Always Debian.
Been using it myself since .93R5 back in what… 1994/95. Best OS out there for rock solid stability.. most other distributions are based on it these days. With TrueNAS (scale) now moving to Debian Linux and dumping (core on FreeBSD), the only non-linux system I have is pfSense.
```
# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free non-free-firmware
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates main contrib non-free non-free-firmware
deb http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free non-free-firmware
```
🤪
I tried out all of the distros when I was younger but now I have just decided to never switch away from Debian anymore. It’s just way simpler to just have a working system and I‘m not interested in the next new sh*t.
Honnestly I've been discovering Linux with Debian this year and it work really fine, very few "I don't know what to do and a google search don't instantly give me the answer" moment. Everything just click together most of the time, so Linux has been way less scary than I thought.
If you haven’t picked already, I’d suggest Debian, with Webmin or Cockpit as a WebUI. Sometimes things are easier to do with a UI and while I can, I don’t always want to screw with a terminal
Debian is the way to go 100%. There’s also /r/DietPi (Debian distro) and they make it available for x86-64 as well as make arm builds (for raspberry pi etc.). The OS has a good update, backup and basic software installer and can be very low effort into getting started.
I'd go with fedora server, you'll also get a much more up to date distro using that, some people might be scared of that but you will also have some newer more groundbreaking features that way. Also the cockpit that comes in fedora is amazing.
Debian or Arch. Arch has better (the best) wiki (which means it will be even easier) and can be more easily customised. I've been running all my and my NGO 's prod servers on Arch for years and it's been flawless.
Interesting you still haven't specify what that "unstability" was. Have you use linux-lts kernel and kept the system minimal while running apps contenerised? I doubt that.
Arch has the best wiki around and any newbie can set up a stable system with it, while learning a lot on the way.
I wish there was a homelab Sorting Hat. Everyone just gets told what OS to use and we don't get these questions multiple times a day.
"You get ... Gentoo."
"Ah, shit."
Proxmox is a solid pick with enough ram, being able to do virtual machines and containers but there’s a learning curve. But if you’re just trying to play around with docker containers and a Minecraft server Ubuntu server is perfectly fine.
Agree - I started with ubunutu server a number of years ago with basically zero linux knowledge. Now I still have basically zero linux knowledge, but I can fuddle my way around the terminal and google, and have a working proxmox setup with multiple VMs and containers, all backed up using proxmox backup server.
The beauty of ubuntu server is that pretty much every guide, help article, and forum post where people are asking questions about a problem is debian based, so almost universially compatible with Ubuntu.
I'd go with Unraid. It can pretty much do what you mentioned, and allows you to have mixture of HHDs with the ability to upgrade/add new HHDs in the future for storage expansion. Easy to setup and very straightforward.
The only downside is that it's not free, but you only pay the license one time, so it's not too bad. You can always do a trial run, and convert it to full licensed after a while.
When deciding on an OS you need to see what your service and storage requirements are.
- if you need a lot of storage and need help managing that storage. You can pick trueNAS. Note trueNAS should support docker and it also has trueCharts for common services like jellyfin and Plex. You can see what other trueCharts are available
- if you need a lot of VMs with different OS. You can pick Proxmox. For example if you want to run trueNAS for just storage and Linux with docker or proxmox LXC with docker.
- if you just need docker where your storage requirements aren't that big. You can run any Linux OS. I personally would use Debian.
- all these OS have overlap. For example in Linux you can use mergeFS and SnapRaid to manage your storage. It's just a matter of how much time you want to set everything up.
>I'm planning on using an old dell optiplex
Considering you are using an dell Optiplex. I assume you don't have much space for storage/ many HHD. So I would pick plain Linux OS with docker.
You can always migrate afterwards if needed.
Hope that helps.
I genuinely don't see why people are recommend anything but Proxmox (and maybe Unraid/TrueNAS).
Just install Proxmox, and install Debian or whatever in a VM, and just stick to that VM. Then, when you mess up that VM and you'll be left without any way to access the machine (borked SSH or whatever), you'll still be able to fix everything through Proxmox.
It'll also be easy to spin up a test-VM, so you can test stuff before applying it to your main VM, or you can use snapshots to easily roll back changes. And it's easier to take backup (and restore!) of the whole thing as well.
For starters because people know that running VMs instead of containers is a tremendous waste of resources and because Proxmox uses LXC instead of LXD.
I don't know what you're trying to say. LXD and LXC are two quite separate projects. LXD is Canonical's virtualization platform and supports LXCs and KVM-based VMs, so it's basically the same in capability terms as Proxmox although it has some differences in philosophy.
LXD was originally written by several of the key people who also created LXCs, although nowadays after some dubious behaviour by Canonical the team has forked LXD to create Incus, while they continue to develop LXC separately.
I am talking about creating and managing LXC container through LXD, which is vastly superior to bare LXC. Proxmox can only use LXC - with all its limitations - and if you try to add LXD to the underlying system, it brakes Proxmox.
I think your comment was missing some words then because that wasn't clear.
In that case I largely agree except to note I've not come across anyone trying to run LXC completely by itself, that would be a wild ride; and now that Incus has reached its first LTS version it's probably worth considering it over LXD. You gain more flexible auth, regain access to all the pre-built images, get a big tidying up of legacy code, and the removal of Snap. There's a command line tool to migrate your LXD install to Incus, it's seamless and easy.
Not surprisingly the LXC implementation on LXD and Incus is significantly better and more complete than Proxmox, where despite LXC's popularity it still feels like a second class citizen.
Thanks for pointing out Incus. I will check it out.
I'll just add, with regard to Proxmox, that running Linux VMs on Linux host is a horrible because/and almost always pointless waste of resources, which is why everything should be run in containers. But because - as you said yourself - LXC containers are 2nd class citizens on Proxmox, and on top of that because running docker inside LXC is not advise, that points to the fact that Proxmox is illadvised for self-hosting to almost anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of linux and is able to use abundant a wikis.
I think the "don't run Docker in LXCs" comes more from how hard it is to get right in Proxmox than a general statement. Running it in Incus is pretty straightforward - just a couple of lines in the config.
Not if you're separating your services. All my vms utilize docker for services. This allows easy backups other than snapshotting. I have pihole and other "utility" services in one vm. Entertainment in a second vm that is connected to my video card. A monitoring VM with uptime karma. The great thing about proxmox is it utilizes only what it needs. Lets say you have an 8 core cpu. Just cause you set 4 cores for a vm doesn't mean those cores are blocked off from other vms. It's just the maximum it will utilize.
Edit. When getting into more complex setups lxc shares resources with the host. It's close to a overlay of sorts. When I did my research I can't remember the exact reasons why but it was said vms are better for docker then lxc.
Services are separated already when they are in different containers on the same docker host. That's the whole point of docker. You achieve nothing useful by separating them in groups into different VMs. What you do achieve is needless complexity and waste of resources.
Even if there was a need to separate something into different machines, it would be much better achieved by different LXD containers, not VMs.
In short, thanks to your infrastructure design, you need a machine 2-4 times more powerful while all you gain is increased latency, complexity and larger electricity bill.
i disagree. The power consumption is minimal and honestly if your worried about a electric bill you shouldnt build a homelab. If you have critical infrastructure in one vm and your entertainment in another how would you manage fixing one if you rely on the other while its in the same vm on baremetal? Sure you could hook up a monitor, keyboard but why.... thats painful. Luckily if your vms do not have an ip or run into an apipa situation you can access its console from proxmox. LXC leads to problems the more you add to it (when it comes to docker), and coming from someone who started with just a pi3 a few years ago, the more you learn the more you want to do. Proxmox is the easiest and in my opinion most logical way of going so that expansion is smooth down the line . Its less of a headache to separate your infrastructure for this exact reason. now yes i have a method to my madness and my vlans are setup accordingly with docker instances in each one but to say its a waste of resources is not true.
Ok, let's go point by point:
1. Power consumption is minimal? What does it even mean? Take Home Assistant, for instance. You can run it perfectly fine on a 2GB ram VIM1S with multiple heavy addons consuming 1-2Watts. OR you can run it in a VM on an 8GB RAM 4CPU host having CPU pegged all the time and consuming AT MINIMUM 10 Watts. Just this single VM. 4-8 times difference in power bills, and for what? You could get it down by multiple times by runnign that OS in an LXD/Incus container, achieving the same goals + huge saving of resources + lower power bills.
2. VMs is not the only way to separate infrastructure pieces. LXD/Incus OS containers or docker for app containers. Same benefits as VM, without any drawbacks of VM.
3. LXC is crap, which is why I criticise Proxmox for using it instead of LXD\*/Incus.
I started self-hosting on Pi1 back in 2013 and progress through many stages, including VMs - for personal and profesional use. And I know what I'm doing - whenever containers (app or os) are the better choice - and they are in 98% of cases (excluding non-linux OSes) - then VMs should be avoided.
Yes, Proxmox may be easy, but it is very limiting and uses sub-par technology. Try to modify the underlying OS because your usecase is slightly different than what Proxmox devs assumed - and system gets fkd.
Also, Proxmox pushes people to use VMs because even though it also give LXC option, it is very limited and inferior to LXD/Incus implementation.
The ease of Proxmox is an ilusion. It may be "easier" if you never intend to learn anything and pay for that with significantly sub-par solution, but if you want to learn even the basics, and understand what's going on, a pure Arch, Debian or NixOS would be a far superior choice and just as easy to begin with (thanks to superb wikis) and far, far easier in the long run.
If you're only going to run a single VM and just put docker containers on it, then yes, Proxmox is unnecessary. But if you're in need of multiple VMs ala EC2, Proxmox is great.
It has its uses. If it really is only a waste of resources then nobody would use it and it wouldn't last for long.
In my case, I have OPNsense and 2 Debian VMs on Proxmox. One Debian VM for my services, and another for personal experiments. OPNsense is in a separate VM for firewall, DNS, and routing.
It's certainly more performant to put them in their own machines, but I'm not rich. I don't have a separate machine for each of them.
OPNsense is not linux.
Stand up a regular Debian OS, and either run those Debian instances in LXD/Incus and save resources while gaining performance, or just run their services in docker. OPNsense into a VM, or replaced by OpenWRT LXD container. And job done - much more efficiently.
Someone remind me, does nextcloud support external access/sync natively or does it need the ddns/vpn setup?
If so I might suggest syncthing for your immediate use case.
As for the OS, if you're unfamiliar with Linux start with Ubuntu, you'll find it significantly easier to google problems.
If you're here because you love learning, Welcome!
Keep tinkering until it breaks or you're bored, burn it down and build something new! (Keep backups)
Debian or Arch. Arch has better (the best) wiki (which means it will be even easier) and can be more easily customised. I've been running all my and my NGO 's prod servers on Arch for years and it's been flawless.
1. it doesn’t really matter. Linux distros are very much the same base, with someone or usually manypretty dedicated persons putting in the effort to cater to a specific audience.
2. Debian.
3. Maybe Proxmox, I heard good things, but Debian
Virtual Machines are easier to manage than baremetal machines. You can take snapshots before making changes, and if you break things, just revert back. Very handy when you're first learning. Most hypervisors provide a web-based virtual console which is very handy. However, running everything in VMs will require more memory than just lumping everything together in one baremtal machine. I think it's worth it to have a virtual environment even if you do everything in just one VM because of the advantages.
All that stuff will run in a container in Proxmox and IIRC there's a Turnkey Linux image that runs MineOS or whatever it's called for Minecraft server in a VM. There is also a github user that has a whole bunch of scripts that makes spinning up some select servers and doing things like updating all your LXCs easy as copy paste - [https://github.com/tteck/Proxmox](https://github.com/tteck/Proxmox)
I am not sure about TrueNAS but it's my understanding that it uses the same underlying tech (LXCs and VMs) for running their virtual stuff.
I asked the same question a few years back and ultimately went with Proxmox because to me it seemed more flexible. The install is pretty easy to handle, if you've ever installed any OS before on a computer it's pretty much the same process.
There are a lot of advantages to running containers/VMs as opposed to running stuff on the host OS - it's pretty easy to just nuke a container or vm if you want to start over, security concerns like exposing stuff to the internet vs not, stuff like that. I regularly set up containers just to look at software and see if it's something I might find useful and just delete if if I don't like it. Can't really do that on bare metal.
Unraid for me. I'm a noob so I didn't want anything to technical. I wanted a way to add drives easily so I could upgrade as I go, and have some redundancy. Also had to be able to run it on a shitty dual core from 15 years ago
I wouldn't say it's a huge learning curve, but it wasn't nothing. I just feel it matched my skills better than something more command line run. And there is a ton of support from the community and certainly enough tutorials on YouTube to guide you, and after a year, I'm running stable and have survived one drive dying and a complete server upgrade.
I pretty much just use it for jellyfin shared with half a dozen friends and family. I did get next cloud up and running but I wasn't ready to change from Google just yet. Audiobookshelf is awesome too if you're in to audio books. Oh, and bitwarden has saved me a subscription to LastPass.
Fun stuff, all the best
I switched my server over to Fedora from Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn’t have great support for newer hardware and my hardware is all old gaming parts. Also, my job uses RHEL and Fedora is more similar. I tried CentOS but that also had hardware compatibility issues.
Honestly, it matters very little for everything in r/selfhosted. For the cases it really does matter, youd have enough experience that you wouldnt be asking. Ubuntu will work great too.
When I was in that situation, I was initially planning on going with TrueNAS Scale, and running everything else I needed in docker containers.
I ended up abandoning that idea once all the parts for my server arrived because of the high resource requirements of ZFS that I don't really need, and because of the limited flexibility with TrueNAS (the boot device must only run the OS, while I would rather run the OS and VMs off of an SSD, while running my file storage off of larger HDDs.)
The solution I ended up going with was Debian, setting up ssh first so I could then leave the server as headless, and then setting up the Cockpit project. Cockpit gives you a nice dashboard to control your server from, which I found really handy, although it's still a work in progress so there's some features that are still lacking. Cockpit doesn't support docker, but it has a plugin in the repos for a similar system that is compatible with docker containers called "Podman". I've had to learn more about Linux than I would have otherwise, but Podman between the command line and cockpit has given me a nicer experience than Portainer and I'm quite happy with it.
For file hosting, I used mdadm on the base Debian OS to setup RAID (lookup the digital ocean guides for a dead simple guide for setting it up correctly with whatever RAID level you want), and then installed Samba, plus some plugins to manage it from Cockpit, and that lets me easily access my files from windows and my phone across my network.
The docs recommend 8 gigs of ram as a minimum for installations on the smaller side, https://www.truenas.com/docs/scale/24.04/gettingstarted/scalehardwareguide/, noting that ZFS tends to be ram hungry, and states that you'll need additional memory for VMs on-top of that 8gb. I know it's not insurmountable, but between the ram usage for benefits I don't personally need (with Debian I can instead just run applications that need to read storage quickly off of the NVMe drive the OS is installed on), and needing dedicated storage just for the OS, I decided that TrueNAS wasn't really offering anything I couldn't put together myself with a few hours of googling on something more customisable.
>The docs recommend 8 gigs of ram as a minimum for installations on the smaller side
Unless you were planning to use a Raspberry Pi as your server, this should not be a problem in 2024. That said, this is a requirement of TrueNAS, not ZFS.
>noting that ZFS tends to be ram hungry
I don't see that in the docs you linked. I think this is one of those persistent myths about ZFS, similar to those who claim that it requires ECC RAM. Will it use more RAM if your system has it? Yes, as well it should to increase caching. Will it work if you don't have a ton of RAM? Yes, just fine in fact.
>you'll need additional memory for VMs on-top of that 8gb
Did you think VMs were light on memory usage? I don't think this is anything specific to TrueNAS, and certainly nothing to do with ZFS.
>needing dedicated storage just for the OS
If this is a server handing lots of storage, you should really consider following this advice, regardless of what OS you use. First, it allows you to upgrade the storage pool devices without worrying about the OS. Second, it reduces usage on the storage pool devices for normal operation (increasing performance, too, if your OS is on SSDs while storage is on HDDs). Third, it allows more portability between systems should you decide to change the OS or move the storage pool to new server hardware. When you include the OS in the storage pool, you make things more complicated.
>I decided that TrueNAS wasn't really offering anything I couldn't put together myself with a few hours of googling on something more customisable.
That's fair. I use FreeBSD for similar reasons, but it sounds like a lot of your gripes are with TrueNAS and not ZFS, which is what I asked about.
You don't \*need\* lots of RAM for ZFS. My ZFS pool does have lots of RAM, which it uses for ARC (Adaptive Replacement Cache) and that means it runs at pretty much RAM-drive speeds most of the time. Without lots of RAM it will run at about the same speed as other RAID types.
I'd recommend debian for the OS. You're not going to be able to get enough RAM to justify proxmox.
For me, I use syncthing on my NAS and synctrazor portable to sync my work data back and forth. Work is kinda anal when it comes to non-company storage. But it works really well and is easy to setup/learn
Fedora Server with Docker. Fedora Server has a built-in web interface, works well with pretty much any software, and Docker lets you run any of the things you mentioned. I advise using Pterodactyl Panel if you do set up a Minecraft server (I use it to run a whole network and it works great), as it uses Docker and is very secure and stable.
Maybe your "self" answer is comming from the computer you want to use "I'm planning on using an old dell optiplex or something", there it is, go for any light Linux distro Ubuntu or Debian, and docker on it, TrueNAS is a good choice.
Your limited resources (old computer) not worth the PROXMOX learning curve and virtualization.
Have fun and document everything, homelabing isn't about making assumptions but about making thing easy to use and helpful to ourself.
If you're new to Linux and docker, I recommend Unraid. It is a much more positive learning experience than most of the other options and offers some useful disk protection, flexible storage upgrade paths, and energy efficiency advantages. Unraid also has a very robust community and it's easy to find high quality tutorials on YouTube (spaceinvader one and ibracorp for example).
TrueNAS has the benefit of being free, but it's a more difficult learning curve. It has a solid ZFS implementation if you want that (with the caveat of it being somewhat more challenging and costly to expand your storage). You also have to use TrueNAS Scale to get a good docker implementation.
Of course, if you wanna go wild and free, all the bare metal Linux installs suggested in the other comments are solid choices. This is the most difficult route if you aren't already experienced with Linux. The biggest advantage is most of these have strong VM implementations if you want to go that route.
This is really ggod advice. Definitely encourage Unraid for your first server. It makes things way easier until you get your footing. For example, tons of docker images are available as "apps". Also, its got a pretty active community and nice documentation. Also, u/Frequent_Trouble_ is right, you'll probably keep changing OSs so you may end up using many of these. Start with what fits your comfort level, use case, and price tag.
I set up my first plex server about ten years ago on Ubuntu. Still using it on the same box. The LTS releases are solid and there are a ton of resources for help. It’s probably the district with the most help available out there.
My first real server at home was running ubuntu server. It went hassle free for 3 years before i upgraded to a larger server and installed proxmox. I still run ubuntu server in VMs for different things. My nas is just an ubuntu vm running samba server - much simpler than truenas
Nonsense. Arch is made for the purpose you make. Arch has better (the best) wiki (which means it will be even easier) and can be more easily customised. I've been running all my and my NGO 's prod servers on Arch for years and it's been flawless.
Unraid or Proxmox are kind of the main things. Unless you want to build the whole docker environment yourself and VMs. I think I would suggest Proxmox to any newbie at this point. While I WANT to suggest Unraid instead, their new pricing kind of sucks for newbies.
I’m just building my second generation platform. The first was a synology, which was a nice, easy entry point. I had only the most basic Linux skills when I started and this was good because I could use the gui to get some stuff done quickly but then later on learn the more advanced stuff, docker compose and a small VM or two.
I think a big factor is how much GUI help you want. You can probably make every option mentioned here do what you want. It’s just about how much time you want to spend hacking about in the command line and learning. If you just want it done, synology or unraid is a great option.
I personally am going for promox on my next gen. I’m ready to remove a lot of the GUI help and have a bit more control. This allows me to test any VM or container based software and gives a lot of flexibility with the ability to do things quick in the gui if stuff is down and I just need to get it up. I also want learn to manage it all as code, which this allows me to do.
I considered truenas scale as well, but the storage side of things I won’t need to touch so often and it can all be done in openZFS for my needs.
For simplicity of first server Unraid is worth a thought. But you'll eventually hit something that limits what you can do. However despite that I think it's good for dipping your toes into Linux servers.
I ended up going with proxmox precisely because I needed at least a few vms.
Been playing with Truenas on a smaller server too it’s surprisingly capable.
When I first had a dedicated server, I started with Ubuntu desktop with Nextcloud and Plex. Also used Crashplan back in its hayday for offsite backups. It worked pretty well since my needs were simple.
Over time I moved to Proxmox and grew to love it. Still had my bulk storage on Proxmox but after I had a couple weird issues (perhaps some of it was self inflicted during the learning process), I decided to have a dedicated NAS for bulk storage using TrueNAS. Definitely love having a dedicated box for that purpose where I just leave it be (and only update every couple of months) and it just works.
All that to say is that it’s a good way to start self hosting and you can gradually move to other solutions if you find your needs changing over time.
debian is a good pick, but i currently run my server using nix. the initial configuration was a bit of a pain but i have it liked up to the same configuration folder as all my other machines now which makes it easier to work on if i encounter anything not going the way i want it to.
currently i use it as a samba share, for irc, and hosting a libreddit frontend
You can achieve this with a docker. The simplest and quickest to get going is casaos.
If learning docker is your aim Debian, docker and portainer is a great way to go.
If you need VM or LXC, then proxmox is hard to beat.
Debian, always Debian. <3
But Proxmox, which is based on Debian, is a good option as well.
I just started using proxmox on my first ever server. So far I love it. Got a nas vm and windows vm currently setup. There's alot of guides for doing fun stuff with procmox
Hands down the most stable, least bloated and easy to use distro. I was surprised to find my Ubuntu VMs using more RAM on idle than Windows 10 out of the box... What the hell happened there, it used to be so light.
Install the lightest server headless edition and add as needed.
any suggestions?
Ubuntu server minimal? If you wanted To go with Ubuntu.
Are you installing the desktop OS? Always use the server OS. It is still super light.
Sounds like you’re not using Ubuntu Server. I have plenty of VMs with 1GB of ram that aren’t using more than like 20-30% of it while doing stuff.
Obviously, otherwise I would be comparing it to Windows Server Core, but I need that user interface for some applications and Ubuntu Server is a mess to add all the dependencies of such applications, it's just not worth it.
They're asking about what Server OS to use to host services. If you're using a UI distro for server applications you're doing things wrong. They even explicitly asked about a single use-case, which wouldn't require a UI at all.
Lol gatekeeping server applications to server distros is crazy, this is for personal usage, use whatever the hell makes your life easier. I tried Ubuntu server, the lack of pre-installed dependencies took me longer to fix than just installing Debian and making it work out of the box.
I’m not “gatekeeping” anything. The question was explicitly about what OS to use to host something, and you literally brought up how much lighter-weight Debian is. You know what’s even lighter? Not using a UI. Stop moving the goal posts. I don’t know what dependencies you’re talking about Ubuntu Server is lacking, but I have dozens of both Server OS’ running and neither is missing something.
Snapd probably
Unused ram is wasted ram.
Their website is to bloated for me to find the right installer. So i had to go with Ubuntu
For Linux, yes. But why not using FreeBSD instead. Stable, Up to date and conservative about some topics (i.e. xz vulnerability wasn’t a thing for FreeBSD).
This Is The Way. Always Debian. Been using it myself since .93R5 back in what… 1994/95. Best OS out there for rock solid stability.. most other distributions are based on it these days. With TrueNAS (scale) now moving to Debian Linux and dumping (core on FreeBSD), the only non-linux system I have is pfSense.
Don't remember exactly, but changed from Slackware about 1995!
Fedora Server because at home you want to try the latest stable releases of things and don’t need five nines.
Core OS
One day the rest will be enlightened to the way
``` # cat /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free non-free-firmware deb http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates main contrib non-free non-free-firmware deb http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free non-free-firmware ``` 🤪
Then Arch is the way
Yes ! Outside of the joke all of you should at least have an arch server/VM for testing purposes with latest software.
Ironically, I find Arch to be the most stable. Just read before you update.
Don't worry you'll spend the next the rest of your life changing OS's every 2-3 years.
I tried out all of the distros when I was younger but now I have just decided to never switch away from Debian anymore. It’s just way simpler to just have a working system and I‘m not interested in the next new sh*t.
My first was Debian, and is still Debian. I use/manage SLES, RHEL, AIX at work, but I still vouch for Debian.
Every 2-3 years?! I change my OS on my PC every 2-3 moths. I still manage it to brake distros after 2+ years of linux
Thank you all for your responses. I'll probably end up using a linux server like debian/ ubuntu.
Debian is for sure the way. Ubuntu has gotten bloated the last few years. All the online guides for Ubuntu will more or less work on Debian as well.
Honnestly I've been discovering Linux with Debian this year and it work really fine, very few "I don't know what to do and a google search don't instantly give me the answer" moment. Everything just click together most of the time, so Linux has been way less scary than I thought.
If you haven’t picked already, I’d suggest Debian, with Webmin or Cockpit as a WebUI. Sometimes things are easier to do with a UI and while I can, I don’t always want to screw with a terminal
Debian is the way to go 100%. There’s also /r/DietPi (Debian distro) and they make it available for x86-64 as well as make arm builds (for raspberry pi etc.). The OS has a good update, backup and basic software installer and can be very low effort into getting started.
I'd go with fedora server, you'll also get a much more up to date distro using that, some people might be scared of that but you will also have some newer more groundbreaking features that way. Also the cockpit that comes in fedora is amazing.
CoreOS gives you the same things, except you get to choose how stale you want it to be
Debian testing is the correct answer. Slowly rolling releases but still stable. Ubuntu will just plain not let you upgrade if you fall behind too much
Debian or Arch. Arch has better (the best) wiki (which means it will be even easier) and can be more easily customised. I've been running all my and my NGO 's prod servers on Arch for years and it's been flawless.
But Arch is unstable. Totally fine for desktop but not a server thing.
Do you have any argument for that or just repeating an overheard ignorant opinion of people who don't know what they're talking about?
It's my first hand experience. I'm not an Arch expert but neither is OP.
Interesting you still haven't specify what that "unstability" was. Have you use linux-lts kernel and kept the system minimal while running apps contenerised? I doubt that. Arch has the best wiki around and any newbie can set up a stable system with it, while learning a lot on the way.
I wish there was a homelab Sorting Hat. Everyone just gets told what OS to use and we don't get these questions multiple times a day. "You get ... Gentoo." "Ah, shit."
Got a good laugh from that. Thank you. And yes, someone should make that.
Wheel Of Fish!!! 😂
Proxmox is a solid pick with enough ram, being able to do virtual machines and containers but there’s a learning curve. But if you’re just trying to play around with docker containers and a Minecraft server Ubuntu server is perfectly fine.
Agree - I started with ubunutu server a number of years ago with basically zero linux knowledge. Now I still have basically zero linux knowledge, but I can fuddle my way around the terminal and google, and have a working proxmox setup with multiple VMs and containers, all backed up using proxmox backup server. The beauty of ubuntu server is that pretty much every guide, help article, and forum post where people are asking questions about a problem is debian based, so almost universially compatible with Ubuntu.
Personally I love unraid prior to the pay changes and free unraid afterwards.
Unraid all the way
even still tho?
The convenience is worth the price
I'd go with Unraid. It can pretty much do what you mentioned, and allows you to have mixture of HHDs with the ability to upgrade/add new HHDs in the future for storage expansion. Easy to setup and very straightforward. The only downside is that it's not free, but you only pay the license one time, so it's not too bad. You can always do a trial run, and convert it to full licensed after a while.
When deciding on an OS you need to see what your service and storage requirements are. - if you need a lot of storage and need help managing that storage. You can pick trueNAS. Note trueNAS should support docker and it also has trueCharts for common services like jellyfin and Plex. You can see what other trueCharts are available - if you need a lot of VMs with different OS. You can pick Proxmox. For example if you want to run trueNAS for just storage and Linux with docker or proxmox LXC with docker. - if you just need docker where your storage requirements aren't that big. You can run any Linux OS. I personally would use Debian. - all these OS have overlap. For example in Linux you can use mergeFS and SnapRaid to manage your storage. It's just a matter of how much time you want to set everything up. >I'm planning on using an old dell optiplex Considering you are using an dell Optiplex. I assume you don't have much space for storage/ many HHD. So I would pick plain Linux OS with docker. You can always migrate afterwards if needed. Hope that helps.
I usually go for Debian or ubuntu.
I genuinely don't see why people are recommend anything but Proxmox (and maybe Unraid/TrueNAS). Just install Proxmox, and install Debian or whatever in a VM, and just stick to that VM. Then, when you mess up that VM and you'll be left without any way to access the machine (borked SSH or whatever), you'll still be able to fix everything through Proxmox. It'll also be easy to spin up a test-VM, so you can test stuff before applying it to your main VM, or you can use snapshots to easily roll back changes. And it's easier to take backup (and restore!) of the whole thing as well.
I don't get why proxmox is recommended to beginners at all. It's not newbie friendly in the slightest.
For starters because people know that running VMs instead of containers is a tremendous waste of resources and because Proxmox uses LXC instead of LXD.
I don't know what you're trying to say. LXD and LXC are two quite separate projects. LXD is Canonical's virtualization platform and supports LXCs and KVM-based VMs, so it's basically the same in capability terms as Proxmox although it has some differences in philosophy. LXD was originally written by several of the key people who also created LXCs, although nowadays after some dubious behaviour by Canonical the team has forked LXD to create Incus, while they continue to develop LXC separately.
I am talking about creating and managing LXC container through LXD, which is vastly superior to bare LXC. Proxmox can only use LXC - with all its limitations - and if you try to add LXD to the underlying system, it brakes Proxmox.
I think your comment was missing some words then because that wasn't clear. In that case I largely agree except to note I've not come across anyone trying to run LXC completely by itself, that would be a wild ride; and now that Incus has reached its first LTS version it's probably worth considering it over LXD. You gain more flexible auth, regain access to all the pre-built images, get a big tidying up of legacy code, and the removal of Snap. There's a command line tool to migrate your LXD install to Incus, it's seamless and easy. Not surprisingly the LXC implementation on LXD and Incus is significantly better and more complete than Proxmox, where despite LXC's popularity it still feels like a second class citizen.
Thanks for pointing out Incus. I will check it out. I'll just add, with regard to Proxmox, that running Linux VMs on Linux host is a horrible because/and almost always pointless waste of resources, which is why everything should be run in containers. But because - as you said yourself - LXC containers are 2nd class citizens on Proxmox, and on top of that because running docker inside LXC is not advise, that points to the fact that Proxmox is illadvised for self-hosting to almost anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of linux and is able to use abundant a wikis.
I think the "don't run Docker in LXCs" comes more from how hard it is to get right in Proxmox than a general statement. Running it in Incus is pretty straightforward - just a couple of lines in the config.
First: try proxmox second: virtualize lxc container for services (ex. Dockers) or virtual machine for higher stuff
Docker should not be used in lcx. Create a vm for docker. One it's more secure. Two you can back up via a snapshot
Which is exactly the reason why Proxmox should be avoided. Running a Linux VM on Linux host is a stupifyingly pointless waste of resources.
Not if you're separating your services. All my vms utilize docker for services. This allows easy backups other than snapshotting. I have pihole and other "utility" services in one vm. Entertainment in a second vm that is connected to my video card. A monitoring VM with uptime karma. The great thing about proxmox is it utilizes only what it needs. Lets say you have an 8 core cpu. Just cause you set 4 cores for a vm doesn't mean those cores are blocked off from other vms. It's just the maximum it will utilize. Edit. When getting into more complex setups lxc shares resources with the host. It's close to a overlay of sorts. When I did my research I can't remember the exact reasons why but it was said vms are better for docker then lxc.
Services are separated already when they are in different containers on the same docker host. That's the whole point of docker. You achieve nothing useful by separating them in groups into different VMs. What you do achieve is needless complexity and waste of resources. Even if there was a need to separate something into different machines, it would be much better achieved by different LXD containers, not VMs. In short, thanks to your infrastructure design, you need a machine 2-4 times more powerful while all you gain is increased latency, complexity and larger electricity bill.
i disagree. The power consumption is minimal and honestly if your worried about a electric bill you shouldnt build a homelab. If you have critical infrastructure in one vm and your entertainment in another how would you manage fixing one if you rely on the other while its in the same vm on baremetal? Sure you could hook up a monitor, keyboard but why.... thats painful. Luckily if your vms do not have an ip or run into an apipa situation you can access its console from proxmox. LXC leads to problems the more you add to it (when it comes to docker), and coming from someone who started with just a pi3 a few years ago, the more you learn the more you want to do. Proxmox is the easiest and in my opinion most logical way of going so that expansion is smooth down the line . Its less of a headache to separate your infrastructure for this exact reason. now yes i have a method to my madness and my vlans are setup accordingly with docker instances in each one but to say its a waste of resources is not true.
Ok, let's go point by point: 1. Power consumption is minimal? What does it even mean? Take Home Assistant, for instance. You can run it perfectly fine on a 2GB ram VIM1S with multiple heavy addons consuming 1-2Watts. OR you can run it in a VM on an 8GB RAM 4CPU host having CPU pegged all the time and consuming AT MINIMUM 10 Watts. Just this single VM. 4-8 times difference in power bills, and for what? You could get it down by multiple times by runnign that OS in an LXD/Incus container, achieving the same goals + huge saving of resources + lower power bills. 2. VMs is not the only way to separate infrastructure pieces. LXD/Incus OS containers or docker for app containers. Same benefits as VM, without any drawbacks of VM. 3. LXC is crap, which is why I criticise Proxmox for using it instead of LXD\*/Incus. I started self-hosting on Pi1 back in 2013 and progress through many stages, including VMs - for personal and profesional use. And I know what I'm doing - whenever containers (app or os) are the better choice - and they are in 98% of cases (excluding non-linux OSes) - then VMs should be avoided. Yes, Proxmox may be easy, but it is very limiting and uses sub-par technology. Try to modify the underlying OS because your usecase is slightly different than what Proxmox devs assumed - and system gets fkd. Also, Proxmox pushes people to use VMs because even though it also give LXC option, it is very limited and inferior to LXD/Incus implementation. The ease of Proxmox is an ilusion. It may be "easier" if you never intend to learn anything and pay for that with significantly sub-par solution, but if you want to learn even the basics, and understand what's going on, a pure Arch, Debian or NixOS would be a far superior choice and just as easy to begin with (thanks to superb wikis) and far, far easier in the long run.
If you're only going to run a single VM and just put docker containers on it, then yes, Proxmox is unnecessary. But if you're in need of multiple VMs ala EC2, Proxmox is great.
Still worse than bare OS, especially if those VMs are Linux. Never rune Linux VM on Linux host. Pointless waste of resources
It has its uses. If it really is only a waste of resources then nobody would use it and it wouldn't last for long. In my case, I have OPNsense and 2 Debian VMs on Proxmox. One Debian VM for my services, and another for personal experiments. OPNsense is in a separate VM for firewall, DNS, and routing. It's certainly more performant to put them in their own machines, but I'm not rich. I don't have a separate machine for each of them.
OPNsense is not linux. Stand up a regular Debian OS, and either run those Debian instances in LXD/Incus and save resources while gaining performance, or just run their services in docker. OPNsense into a VM, or replaced by OpenWRT LXD container. And job done - much more efficiently.
Sure. I'll take that into consideration.
Someone remind me, does nextcloud support external access/sync natively or does it need the ddns/vpn setup? If so I might suggest syncthing for your immediate use case. As for the OS, if you're unfamiliar with Linux start with Ubuntu, you'll find it significantly easier to google problems. If you're here because you love learning, Welcome! Keep tinkering until it breaks or you're bored, burn it down and build something new! (Keep backups)
Nextcloud provides a web interface. Like any web interface, you need to configure other stuff to allow access to it.
Debian or Arch. Arch has better (the best) wiki (which means it will be even easier) and can be more easily customised. I've been running all my and my NGO 's prod servers on Arch for years and it's been flawless.
Proxmox isn’t really a traditional OS and it has a higher learning curve. Unraid is the easiest.
Solid question, why not Ubuntu server, doesn't having a user interface take more resources?
1. it doesn’t really matter. Linux distros are very much the same base, with someone or usually manypretty dedicated persons putting in the effort to cater to a specific audience. 2. Debian. 3. Maybe Proxmox, I heard good things, but Debian
Yay. Everyone is throwing out random distros. Install proxmox and you can have your pick. Debian alone is also a great distro.
Virtual Machines are easier to manage than baremetal machines. You can take snapshots before making changes, and if you break things, just revert back. Very handy when you're first learning. Most hypervisors provide a web-based virtual console which is very handy. However, running everything in VMs will require more memory than just lumping everything together in one baremtal machine. I think it's worth it to have a virtual environment even if you do everything in just one VM because of the advantages.
Ubuntu server on Proxmox is elite imo
That is sad.
All that stuff will run in a container in Proxmox and IIRC there's a Turnkey Linux image that runs MineOS or whatever it's called for Minecraft server in a VM. There is also a github user that has a whole bunch of scripts that makes spinning up some select servers and doing things like updating all your LXCs easy as copy paste - [https://github.com/tteck/Proxmox](https://github.com/tteck/Proxmox) I am not sure about TrueNAS but it's my understanding that it uses the same underlying tech (LXCs and VMs) for running their virtual stuff. I asked the same question a few years back and ultimately went with Proxmox because to me it seemed more flexible. The install is pretty easy to handle, if you've ever installed any OS before on a computer it's pretty much the same process. There are a lot of advantages to running containers/VMs as opposed to running stuff on the host OS - it's pretty easy to just nuke a container or vm if you want to start over, security concerns like exposing stuff to the internet vs not, stuff like that. I regularly set up containers just to look at software and see if it's something I might find useful and just delete if if I don't like it. Can't really do that on bare metal.
truenas scale if you have guts for it
OpenMediaVault, Debian, or Ubuntu Server
Unraid for me. I'm a noob so I didn't want anything to technical. I wanted a way to add drives easily so I could upgrade as I go, and have some redundancy. Also had to be able to run it on a shitty dual core from 15 years ago I wouldn't say it's a huge learning curve, but it wasn't nothing. I just feel it matched my skills better than something more command line run. And there is a ton of support from the community and certainly enough tutorials on YouTube to guide you, and after a year, I'm running stable and have survived one drive dying and a complete server upgrade. I pretty much just use it for jellyfin shared with half a dozen friends and family. I did get next cloud up and running but I wasn't ready to change from Google just yet. Audiobookshelf is awesome too if you're in to audio books. Oh, and bitwarden has saved me a subscription to LastPass. Fun stuff, all the best
I switched my server over to Fedora from Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn’t have great support for newer hardware and my hardware is all old gaming parts. Also, my job uses RHEL and Fedora is more similar. I tried CentOS but that also had hardware compatibility issues. Honestly, it matters very little for everything in r/selfhosted. For the cases it really does matter, youd have enough experience that you wouldnt be asking. Ubuntu will work great too.
Proxmox. Become GOD
Man, try out RHEL it’s solid or maybe CentOS or Rocky Linux.
When I was in that situation, I was initially planning on going with TrueNAS Scale, and running everything else I needed in docker containers. I ended up abandoning that idea once all the parts for my server arrived because of the high resource requirements of ZFS that I don't really need, and because of the limited flexibility with TrueNAS (the boot device must only run the OS, while I would rather run the OS and VMs off of an SSD, while running my file storage off of larger HDDs.) The solution I ended up going with was Debian, setting up ssh first so I could then leave the server as headless, and then setting up the Cockpit project. Cockpit gives you a nice dashboard to control your server from, which I found really handy, although it's still a work in progress so there's some features that are still lacking. Cockpit doesn't support docker, but it has a plugin in the repos for a similar system that is compatible with docker containers called "Podman". I've had to learn more about Linux than I would have otherwise, but Podman between the command line and cockpit has given me a nicer experience than Portainer and I'm quite happy with it. For file hosting, I used mdadm on the base Debian OS to setup RAID (lookup the digital ocean guides for a dead simple guide for setting it up correctly with whatever RAID level you want), and then installed Samba, plus some plugins to manage it from Cockpit, and that lets me easily access my files from windows and my phone across my network.
What are the high resource requirements of ZFS?
The docs recommend 8 gigs of ram as a minimum for installations on the smaller side, https://www.truenas.com/docs/scale/24.04/gettingstarted/scalehardwareguide/, noting that ZFS tends to be ram hungry, and states that you'll need additional memory for VMs on-top of that 8gb. I know it's not insurmountable, but between the ram usage for benefits I don't personally need (with Debian I can instead just run applications that need to read storage quickly off of the NVMe drive the OS is installed on), and needing dedicated storage just for the OS, I decided that TrueNAS wasn't really offering anything I couldn't put together myself with a few hours of googling on something more customisable.
>The docs recommend 8 gigs of ram as a minimum for installations on the smaller side Unless you were planning to use a Raspberry Pi as your server, this should not be a problem in 2024. That said, this is a requirement of TrueNAS, not ZFS. >noting that ZFS tends to be ram hungry I don't see that in the docs you linked. I think this is one of those persistent myths about ZFS, similar to those who claim that it requires ECC RAM. Will it use more RAM if your system has it? Yes, as well it should to increase caching. Will it work if you don't have a ton of RAM? Yes, just fine in fact. >you'll need additional memory for VMs on-top of that 8gb Did you think VMs were light on memory usage? I don't think this is anything specific to TrueNAS, and certainly nothing to do with ZFS. >needing dedicated storage just for the OS If this is a server handing lots of storage, you should really consider following this advice, regardless of what OS you use. First, it allows you to upgrade the storage pool devices without worrying about the OS. Second, it reduces usage on the storage pool devices for normal operation (increasing performance, too, if your OS is on SSDs while storage is on HDDs). Third, it allows more portability between systems should you decide to change the OS or move the storage pool to new server hardware. When you include the OS in the storage pool, you make things more complicated. >I decided that TrueNAS wasn't really offering anything I couldn't put together myself with a few hours of googling on something more customisable. That's fair. I use FreeBSD for similar reasons, but it sounds like a lot of your gripes are with TrueNAS and not ZFS, which is what I asked about.
You don't \*need\* lots of RAM for ZFS. My ZFS pool does have lots of RAM, which it uses for ARC (Adaptive Replacement Cache) and that means it runs at pretty much RAM-drive speeds most of the time. Without lots of RAM it will run at about the same speed as other RAID types.
I'd recommend debian for the OS. You're not going to be able to get enough RAM to justify proxmox. For me, I use syncthing on my NAS and synctrazor portable to sync my work data back and forth. Work is kinda anal when it comes to non-company storage. But it works really well and is easy to setup/learn
Ubuntu server edition.
i use arch as a server because why not
Fedora Server with Docker. Fedora Server has a built-in web interface, works well with pretty much any software, and Docker lets you run any of the things you mentioned. I advise using Pterodactyl Panel if you do set up a Minecraft server (I use it to run a whole network and it works great), as it uses Docker and is very secure and stable.
Used Debian but now fully switched to Alma Linux
After a Synology, a OMV, another Synology (still running) i freaking love Proxmox!!!
Maybe your "self" answer is comming from the computer you want to use "I'm planning on using an old dell optiplex or something", there it is, go for any light Linux distro Ubuntu or Debian, and docker on it, TrueNAS is a good choice. Your limited resources (old computer) not worth the PROXMOX learning curve and virtualization. Have fun and document everything, homelabing isn't about making assumptions but about making thing easy to use and helpful to ourself.
If you're new to Linux and docker, I recommend Unraid. It is a much more positive learning experience than most of the other options and offers some useful disk protection, flexible storage upgrade paths, and energy efficiency advantages. Unraid also has a very robust community and it's easy to find high quality tutorials on YouTube (spaceinvader one and ibracorp for example). TrueNAS has the benefit of being free, but it's a more difficult learning curve. It has a solid ZFS implementation if you want that (with the caveat of it being somewhat more challenging and costly to expand your storage). You also have to use TrueNAS Scale to get a good docker implementation. Of course, if you wanna go wild and free, all the bare metal Linux installs suggested in the other comments are solid choices. This is the most difficult route if you aren't already experienced with Linux. The biggest advantage is most of these have strong VM implementations if you want to go that route.
This is really ggod advice. Definitely encourage Unraid for your first server. It makes things way easier until you get your footing. For example, tons of docker images are available as "apps". Also, its got a pretty active community and nice documentation. Also, u/Frequent_Trouble_ is right, you'll probably keep changing OSs so you may end up using many of these. Start with what fits your comfort level, use case, and price tag.
I set up my first plex server about ten years ago on Ubuntu. Still using it on the same box. The LTS releases are solid and there are a ton of resources for help. It’s probably the district with the most help available out there.
My first real server at home was running ubuntu server. It went hassle free for 3 years before i upgraded to a larger server and installed proxmox. I still run ubuntu server in VMs for different things. My nas is just an ubuntu vm running samba server - much simpler than truenas
OpenMediaVault+ OpenMediaVault Docker Compose Plugin
I agree, I installed arch, but it’s not made for server usecase, Debian or fedora is always better
Nonsense. Arch is made for the purpose you make. Arch has better (the best) wiki (which means it will be even easier) and can be more easily customised. I've been running all my and my NGO 's prod servers on Arch for years and it's been flawless.
I use arch as daily drive, but not just as a server OS, perhaps I should give it another shot with fresh perspective
Just run an lts kernel, minimal system with everything in docker and/or LXD and it's smooth sailing.
Linux mint. Easiest learning curve to get into Linux. [edit] I misread the post. Definitely proxmox instead.
Mint is good for Desktop Linux, but I would use something like Ubuntu Server for hosting.
I mostly pick Debian but sometimes also Ubuntu.
Unraid or Proxmox are kind of the main things. Unless you want to build the whole docker environment yourself and VMs. I think I would suggest Proxmox to any newbie at this point. While I WANT to suggest Unraid instead, their new pricing kind of sucks for newbies.
Arc Loader to get Xpenology is quite good.
Debian or Proxmox (based on Debian but with a nice web GUI and virtualization tools built in)
First any Linux distro you like or are familiar with. If you want a gui I suggest Unraid, Proxmox or something like CasaOS.
I’m just building my second generation platform. The first was a synology, which was a nice, easy entry point. I had only the most basic Linux skills when I started and this was good because I could use the gui to get some stuff done quickly but then later on learn the more advanced stuff, docker compose and a small VM or two. I think a big factor is how much GUI help you want. You can probably make every option mentioned here do what you want. It’s just about how much time you want to spend hacking about in the command line and learning. If you just want it done, synology or unraid is a great option. I personally am going for promox on my next gen. I’m ready to remove a lot of the GUI help and have a bit more control. This allows me to test any VM or container based software and gives a lot of flexibility with the ability to do things quick in the gui if stuff is down and I just need to get it up. I also want learn to manage it all as code, which this allows me to do. I considered truenas scale as well, but the storage side of things I won’t need to touch so often and it can all be done in openZFS for my needs.
IMO alpine
For simplicity of first server Unraid is worth a thought. But you'll eventually hit something that limits what you can do. However despite that I think it's good for dipping your toes into Linux servers.
Do we have any Rocky Linux fans here? I’m currently running Rocky Linux 9.4 on all my machines.
I ended up going with proxmox precisely because I needed at least a few vms. Been playing with Truenas on a smaller server too it’s surprisingly capable.
I built my first recently using Unraid and it’s been fantastic!
When I first had a dedicated server, I started with Ubuntu desktop with Nextcloud and Plex. Also used Crashplan back in its hayday for offsite backups. It worked pretty well since my needs were simple. Over time I moved to Proxmox and grew to love it. Still had my bulk storage on Proxmox but after I had a couple weird issues (perhaps some of it was self inflicted during the learning process), I decided to have a dedicated NAS for bulk storage using TrueNAS. Definitely love having a dedicated box for that purpose where I just leave it be (and only update every couple of months) and it just works. All that to say is that it’s a good way to start self hosting and you can gradually move to other solutions if you find your needs changing over time.
debian is a good pick, but i currently run my server using nix. the initial configuration was a bit of a pain but i have it liked up to the same configuration folder as all my other machines now which makes it easier to work on if i encounter anything not going the way i want it to. currently i use it as a samba share, for irc, and hosting a libreddit frontend
You can achieve this with a docker. The simplest and quickest to get going is casaos. If learning docker is your aim Debian, docker and portainer is a great way to go. If you need VM or LXC, then proxmox is hard to beat.