I want to use Jellyfin on Proxmox, if that is a thing. After reading a post here where most people recommended Debian as host OS I want to make a VM running Debian and install Jellyfin Server there.

Now I have a few questions:

  • I see many people install Jellyfin via docker. Does that have any advantages? I would prefer to avoid docker as it adds a level of complexity for me.

  • where do I save my media? I have a loose plan to run a second VM running openMediaVault where all my HDDs are passed through and then use NFS to mount a folder on the Jellyfin VM. Is that a sane path?

  • what do I have to consider on Proxmox, to get the best hardware results on Jellyfin? Do I need some special passthrough magic to get it running smoothly? I don’t have a dedicated GPU, does that make the configuration easier?

  • glasgitarrewelt@feddit.deOPEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    I understand that I can use a VM to run docker, but:

    Wouldn’t make a LXC more sense than a VM with docker inside? And what are the advantages of running jellyfin in a container instead of a normal installation? The VM is already kind of a container, what benefits do I get from yet another container inside? I am curious to learn more!

    • thirdBreakfast@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Your head might be spinning from all the different advice you’re getting - don’t worry, there are a lot of options and lots of folk are jumping in with genuinely good (and well meaning) advice. I guess I’ll add my two cents, but try and explain the ‘why’ of my thinking.

      I’m assuming from your questions you know your way around a computer, can figure things out, but haven’t done much self-hosting. If I’m wrong about that, go ahead and skip this suggestion.

      • Jellyfin good - a common gateway drug to homelabbing, and the only thing you’ll do that non-tech friends will appreciate
      • Proxmox good - it makes the backups simple and provides a path forward for all sorts of things
      • Docker good - you’ve said it increases complexity; this is correct in that you’re adding more layers of stuff, but it reduces your complexity of management by removing a heap of dependency issues. There is a compute and memory overhead involved, but it’s small and the tradeoff is worth it.
      • VM good - yes an LXC is more efficient, but it’s harder to run docker in. Save that for a future project
      • Media data somewhere else good - I run a separate NAS with an SMB share. A NAS in a VM is a compromise, but like all things self hosting, you start out with what you’ve got. I let Jellyfin keep the metadata in the VM that’s hosting my Jellyfin though since the NAS is over the network. That’s less of a consideration if you are visualizing your NAS on the same machine, but I’d still do it my way for future proofing.
      • Passthrough magic not yet - this can also be a future project. If your metal has quicksync that can be utilized to reduce the CPU load, but that can also be a future project.
      • glasgitarrewelt@feddit.deOPEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        That summarized my situation pretty good. Since a year now I switched everything to Linux, selfhosting seems to be a natural extension of that.

        May I ask, since you have a very beginner-friendly way of writing:

        I run a separate NAS with an SMB share.

        Why did you choose SMB instead of NFS? I read here that NFS is very efficient and fast.

        Docker good

        Many people here have very convincing arguments for docker. While checking it out I saw that it uses partly proprietary licenses. Why are so many people so sure that docker won’t pull a ‘Unity-stunt’ and make their knowledge about docker obsolete?

        LXC is more efficient, but it’s harder to run docker in.

        I meant to install a Jellyfin LXC, if there is such a thing, without docker involved. Is that possible?

        • folkrav@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          The Docker engine itself, meaning the dockerd daemon, its APIs and the docker CLI, are all under Apache 2.0. The non-free parts are mostly in their Docker Desktop offering, which is mostly a convenience GUI and not absolutely necessary (the easiest, on Windows and macOS, probably, but not the only one) to run Docker on most platforms.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Docker lets the maintainers configure all of the dependencies for you. You then don’t need to worry about whether you’re using debian, ubuntu or even fedora. When you upgrade jellyfin you just pick the new tag to pull without worrying about whether it needs a new version of ffmpeg or if it works with avconv.

      It gets you out of the business of trying to maintain compatibility and just keeping your os up to date.

      Feel free to use lxc though. I had issues with using lxc that I couldn’t work around so I use cloudinit ubuntu/debian images instead. I think the issue I had was actually using NFS but I don’t remember…

    • walden@sub.wetshaving.socialEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      My experience with LXC hasn’t been ideal, but for reasons that are by design. The permissions make it complicated for the way I use it. Proxmox has all of the storage, which is shared with the LXC as a Mount Point. The LXC has unique user PIDs and GIDs, so if the LXC modifies a file, now none of my other stuff has permission to access it.

      I had to add some config stuff to get around this problem, but in the end I just switched to VMs. I don’t care about overhead that much.

      Edit to add more info: I think the permissions problem is only if you make the container “unprivileged”. The relevant config to add to /etc/pve/lxc/***.conf is as follows:

      unprivileged: 1
lxc.idmap: u 0 100000 1000
lxc.idmap: g 0 100000 1000
lxc.idmap: u 1000 1000 1
lxc.idmap: g 1000 1000 1
lxc.idmap: u 1001 101001 64535
lxc.idmap: g 1001 101001 64535

      I have no clue why this works. I think I copied it from Proxmox documentation. It worked and I left it at that.

      • RevvEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        The user and group mapping for lxc is easy(ish) once you understand it.

        The above breaks out as follows: lxc.idmap: [user/group] [beginning host UID/GID] [number of sequential IDs to map]

        lxc.idmap: u 0 100000 1000 [maps LXC UIDs 0-999 to host UIDs 100000-100999]

        lxc.idmap: g 0 100000 1000 [maps LXC GIDs 0-999 to host GIDs 100000-100999]

        lxc.idmap: u 1000 1000 1 [maps LXC UID 1000 to host UID 1000]

        lxc.idmap: g 1000 1000 1 [maps LXC GID 1000 to host GID 1000]

        lxc.idmap: u 1001 101001 64535 [maps LXC UIDs 1001-65535 to host UIDs 101001-165535]

        lxc.idmap: g 1001 101001 64535 [maps LXC GIDs 1001-65535 to host GIDs 101001-165535]

        The last two lines are needed because a running Linux system needs access to a minimum of 65336 UIDs/GIDs (zero-indexed).

        You can basically think of LXC as running everything on the host system itself, but running it all as UID/GID 100000-65535 by default. In an unprivileged container, you have to remap these to give access to resources not owned by that range.

          • RevvEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Nope. It just maps a single user and group from the container to a regular user on the host. With the above config, root in the container has the “real” UID of 100000. It can’t make changes to anything any other unprivileged user can. A privileged container otoh runs root as root. It can do a lot of damage. By running privileged containers you’re kind of throwing out a good portion of LXC’s benefits.