Planning a multi VM server build in the near future...advice needed.


Recommended Posts

So I plan on building a home server in the near future. This is the kind of stuff I want to run on it. Also listed a few parts that I thought would suit this requirement. Will this be enough?

 

Current: ASUS RT-N56U router, 125 mbps up/down, unmanaged Gigabit switch, 1 additional access point, Raspberry pi 3B+ running Pi-hole.

Here is the hardware currently being used at home. 4 computers, 1 media file server, 2 Kodi boxes, 3 tablets, 6 mobile phones, 2 Amazon Echo's and 2 Raspberry Pi's. I really don't foresee much changing in terms of quantity of devices even in the future. But for future proofing sake, let's say another one dozen internet connected devices.

 

Crucial - will this hardware be capable of pushing Gigabit internet?

 

Server requirements:

 

Windows 10 base, Hyper-Virtualisation: pfSense (or OPNsense), WordPress website hosting, Subsonic / Airsonic music server, Pi-hole, some CCTV monitoring, NextCloud, 1 Linux distro for fooling around, and finally Windows 10 (for testing). All these as VM's in Hyper-V. Also, OpenVPN for connecting from outside. A maximum of 4 users at any given point of time. Mostly just me.

 

Not at all keen on a full Linux setup, as I'm far more comfortable with Windows. Linux based stuff like Pi-hole is fine as it is dead simple to setup.

 

Thought of using an AMD A8 series processor, coupled with a Gigabyte Mini-ITX motherboard, 450W PSU, 16 GB DDR3 or DDR4 RAM, 1 SSD and 1 HDD.

 

Finally, I've read that Intel NIC's are the best supported under pfSense/OPNsense. But due to initial budget constraints (will upgrade later), I will be using the on-board LAN (Realtek) and adding in another TP-Link card. Realistically, what kind of hit can I expect by not using Intel, given my requirements and device count?

 

Look forward to the responses!

If they're all virtualized, pfSense won't see the NICs, they'll see the virtualized hardware.  Intel NICs are typically better from my experience, but my experience embedded server NICs or add-in cards.  I'm more familiar with VMWare than Hyper-V, so I might be incorrect on how the NICs are handled.  Hopefully someone else will reply.

 

I wouldn't think you would take too much of a hit for a home setup.  You should focus more of disk speed and RAM for a home setup.  

 

You need to look and see if there are any issues for Hyper-V and your NIC of choice, or just how well it's supported by Windows.

 

 

  • Like 1
2 hours ago, farmeunit said:

If they're all virtualized, pfSense won't see the NICs, they'll see the virtualized hardware.  Intel NICs are typically better from my experience, but my experience embedded server NICs or add-in cards.  I'm more familiar with VMWare than Hyper-V, so I might be incorrect on how the NICs are handled.  Hopefully someone else will reply.

 

I wouldn't think you would take too much of a hit for a home setup.  You should focus more of disk speed and RAM for a home setup.  

 

You need to look and see if there are any issues for Hyper-V and your NIC of choice, or just how well it's supported by Windows.

 

 

Yes, the NIC's do get virtualised, so pfSense will see the virtual one. But in this case, since the underlying real thing is Realtek or something else, and virtual is Intel, wouldn't performance be according to Realtek? What I mean to say is, although pfSense will see Intel, it will work as Realtek since that is the underlying hardware. I'm not too clear on this point though. Logically it should be like this, but I may be wrong.

 

In my experience, hardware with Windows is far better supported, so I don't really foresee a problem. But I will keep it in mind!

 

Yup, planning on 16GB RAM and a 120GB SSD. The 1TB HDD is mainly for storing the music for the Subsonic server.

I am running an old hp p6654y that I upped to 8 gig, put in a gig realteak nic (stupid thing only had 10/100) and a USB 3 card. 128 gig ssd for boot and VMs and 2 2 TB drives for music and data.

The pc is running win 10, and is my media and kodi machine. I am using Virtualbox for 2 linux VMs and am having no problems so far. My main issue is finding a better cheaper video card to replace the old 8600gt, really want something to handle HD video well and pull less watts.

 

The whole thing is working pretty well at the moment and was a good use of the old bits i had on hand.

vmware and hyper-v are very similar in the way they handle multiple nics at least on the individual hypervisor level.  Things get a little more interesting when you get into distributed switches in vmware, I haven't seen a similar thing in hyper-v (but I haven't looked that hard into hyper-v to find it). 

 

I think it may be slow with your hardware you are throwing into it.  But TBH I don't run virtualization on pc hardware with a workstation OS.

  • Like 1

I wouldn't use Virtualbox.  Fine for a few machines here and there, but Hyper-V and VMWare both have better management tools.  

 

As @sc302mentioned, it will probably be a little slower on that hardware.  But if it's not that heavily used, it might be fine.

 

 

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, sc302 said:

vmware and hyper-v are very similar in the way they handle multiple nics at least on the individual hypervisor level.  Things get a little more interesting when you get into distributed switches in vmware, I haven't seen a similar thing in hyper-v (but I haven't looked that hard into hyper-v to find it). 

 

I think it may be slow with your hardware you are throwing into it.  But TBH I don't run virtualization on pc hardware with a workstation OS.

 

12 minutes ago, farmeunit said:

I wouldn't use Virtualbox.  Fine for a few machines here and there, but Hyper-V and VMWare both have better management tools.  

 

As @sc302mentioned, it will probably be a little slower on that hardware.  But if it's not that heavily used, it might be fine.

 

 

Ok, thanks for the inputs! Although the Linux distro and Win 10 are going to be off mostly. What will always be on is pfSense, Pi-hole, WordPress (LAMP, not WAMP), Subsonic and NextCloud. CCTV is distant future.

 

OpenVPN usage is also going to be very light, mainly want it for taking advantage of Pi-hole when not at home.

 

So what is the probable bottleneck, the processor?

Also, will this hardware be capable of gigabit internet? Right now my plan is 125 Mbps, but I may move to gigabit in a couple of years. Maybe less. Just depends on when the costs come down! ?

Wow, 16GB also not enough for this?

 

This is how I had planned to split the RAM:

 

4GB reserved for Windows 10 base

4GB - pf/opn sense

1GB - WordPress

512MB - Subsonic

512MB to 1GB - NextCloud

1GB - Pi-hole (3 million plus filters list)

1GB - Linux distro

2GB - Windows 10

 

This still leaves 1.5 to 2 GB spare.

 

I was a little doubtful about the processor myself, but figured it'll be fine for home use? What then, Ryzen? I really don't want to go with Intel as that increases the cost quite a bit!

 

do you want it to work, or do you want it to be fast enough for you to not notice that it is slow?

 

Those are 2 very different things.

 

Windows seems to work well at 8GB, Windows seems to be a bit slow at 4, for example.  Will it work at 4, yes...will you notice a speed increase at 8, yes.

 

Do you want performance or do you want functionality...what you are going for with your design is functionality, not performance.

 

When you ask, "will it handle 1Gb/s"....While technically yes, your parts will provide the necessary connection for 1Gb/s...will your parts be able to inspect and pass at 1Gb/s, I don't think so.  Functionally, it will work...performance, wise it will suffer.

  • Like 2

Ok, thanks! Yes, I definitely want performance. Don't want it struggling, especially if I upgrade to gigabit internet! But I'll start with 16GB when I finally build it, and see how it works at home, then take a call. I was also reading up on some other processors, the Ryzen 3 1200 base model is quite a bit superior to the A8, so will go with that instead. ?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Segra 1.6.2 by Razvan Serea Segra is a free, open-source OBS-powered game recorder offering fast gameplay capture, instant clips, AI highlights, deep game integration, and seamless uploads—perfect for gamers, streamers, and content creators. Lightweight, fast, zero bloat. Segra key features: Automatic Game Recording: Begin capturing gameplay the moment your game launches, with zero manual setup. Instant Clipping: Save important moments instantly using a customizable hotkey—perfect for highlights, montages, or quick shares. Segra AI Highlights: Let Segra automatically detect kills, assists, deaths, and key events to generate polished highlight reels without manual editing. Gameplay Uploads: Upload recordings and clips directly to Segra.tv for fast sharing and cloud access. Deep Game Integration: Enjoy advanced game-data tracking across hundreds of supported titles, enabling smart highlight generation and stat-informed clipping. High-Performance Capture: Record up to 4K at 144 FPS using OBS-powered technology with minimal performance impact, supporting NVENC, AMD VCE, and custom quality controls. Segra Editor: Edit recordings easily with timeline controls, segment management, and event-based navigation to build the perfect clip. Customization Options: Adjust hotkeys, output formats, storage paths, codecs, capture quality, and performance settings for a tailored recording experience. Segra 1.6.2 changelog: UI: Improved the transition from the loading skeleton to the real content card. Security: Added Segra.dll code signing and automatic VirusTotal upload. Settings: Fixed the settings header to highlight Account when scrolled to the top. Recording: Updated OBSKit.NET to 1.4.1. Download: Segra 1.6.2 | 74.5 MB (Open Source) View: Segra Homepage | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Hey Google, these are the Gemini features I want in 2026 by Aditya Tiwari Google Gemini has been around for over three years. The AI chatbot started its journey back in 2023 (as Bard) when ChatGPT was already a talk of the town. However, it quickly attracted criticism after misrepresenting facts about the James Webb Space Telescope. The search giant spent a year fine-tuning Bard before rebranding the chatbot and its underlying generative AI model to Gemini, drawing inspiration from NASA's first human spaceflight program. Note that Bard was initially powered by LaMDA and PaLM 2; Google has since added several new features and integrations to Gemini. That said, there is scope for improvement and a gap for new features. I have been using Gemini for a while now and have realized that the chatbot lacks several features, making it harder for me to research across topics. These are mostly function-over-form updates that can improve the overall experience. Delete individual messages from a conversation Image via DepositPhotos.com One good thing about Gemini is that it can maintain context throughout the conversation. But things might get chaotic when you want to ask a related question, but don't want it to be part of your conversation in the long run. You can't ask that related question in a fresh chat because Gemini will lose the active conversation context of what you're trying to research. If Google allowed you to delete individual question/answer pairs, you could simply ask about a sub-topic and remove it from the conversation to create a smooth flow of important stuff. Offline mode Image via DepositPhotos.com A big pain of using Gemini daily is that everything loads from the cloud. It takes time for your chats to appear, and you can't view your conversation history while offline. To get a better idea, you can open the Gemini app and see how it looks without an internet connection. While Gemini models run in the cloud, it wouldn't hurt if Google could store chats (at least the text part) on the device so we can refer to them when offline. Google can also offer a lightweight version of its AI model to help with basic drafting, summarization, and other tasks. It has the Gemini Nano model, which can perform on-device processing on Google Pixel, Samsung, and some other Android brands, but it's a system feature and not related to the cloud-based Gemini app. Make temporary chats permanent I can't thank Google enough for taking the time and effort to add incognito mode or temporary chat mode to the Gemini app. It lets you have conversations without worrying that the topics will end up in your chat history or used for model training (at least on paper). Google claims that it doesn't use your temporary chats to "personalize your Gemini experience or train Google’s AI models." However, the data is stored "up to 72 hours to respond to you and to process any feedback you choose to provide." That said, I often start researching something in a temporary chat, only to realize the chatbot's answer is good enough to refer to later. Sadly, Gemini doesn't have an option to make such temporary chats permanent. In other words, I won't be able to follow up on it if I close the temporary chat. I'm left with alternatives like copying the answers into notes or another app. My digital life will get a lot better if Gemini gets a button to make temporary chats permanent. Collapse answers for a cleaner view You're heavily invested in your research game and suddenly feel the need to go up in the chat to recall something. This is when the conversation thread starts to feel like an overwhelming, unending wall of questions and answers. What if Google added a way to collapse Q&A pairs in the Gemini chat thread? It would look quite clean and easy to navigate. You'll quickly get an overview of everything you have discussed with the chatbot. Add buttons to jump between messages Suggested mockup of the feature. This reminds me of a small but useful Gemini feature that Google could add to its chatbot: the ability to hop between prompts in a conversation. Just add simple up- and down-arrow buttons, similar to YouTube Shorts, so people can quickly scroll through the messages. A table of contents or Chat Overview It's hard to get a bird's-eye view of everything you have discussed with the chatbot during a lengthy conversation. This is where a table of contents, or Chat Overview, displayed at the top of the screen, possibly in a drop-down button, might come in handy. You'll be able to get an overview of the chat and jump between messages, serving as an alternative to the up/down arrow buttons. Temporary mode for Gemini Live Image: Google You can use Gemini Live to have real-time conversations with the chatbot, which feels like you're talking to someone in the same room. However, a downside is that Gemini Live doesn't work in Temporary Chat mode, so all your conversations end up in the chat history. Google should consider expanding the temporary chat mode to include Gemini Live. Default to a specific chat One thing that feels somewhat annoying to me is that Gemini always opens in a new chat, whether on web or mobile. Sometimes, you want to return to your last chat. Google can take cues from web browsers, which let you choose whether you want to go to a new tab or a specific web page(s). Gemini can also have options to default to a specific chat when reopened. That said, generative AI chatbots have endless possibilities given the vagueness of their work. You can mold them the way you want by attaching different connectors, adding custom instructions, and including source files. It remains to be seen what Google has in store for future updates and whether anything from this wishlist gets the green light. The search giant released a stream of new Gemini updates in recent months, including Gemini 3.5 Flash and Gemini Omni Spark, adding that it now has 13 products with more than a billion users each. What do you want to see in the Gemini app? Tell us in the comments.
    • Thank you for the post. Just a FYI that links to an outside site or promoting specific software is considered spamming here. Asking general questions is fine.
    • I have been thinking about AI detector tools as a software workflow rather than a single "AI score" widget. When someone pastes text or uploads a document, the UI can return a report with a probability-style score, sentence highlights, reliability notes, and limitations. The useful part is that it can point a reviewer toward passages worth reading again. The risky part is that a polished score can look more certain than it really is. For people who build or review web apps, what should happen before the user copies or exports that kind of report? The minimum I would expect is: A clear input boundary for pasted text versus document files. Limits shown near the workflow, including minimum text length and maximum file size. A report label that says the result is a signal, not proof of who wrote the text. Sentence highlights and evidence notes alongside the global score. Reliability notes when the sample is too short or lacks enough sentence variety. False-positive and false-negative caveats that remain visible in copied/exported summaries. I am trying to avoid the pattern where a clean report card becomes the whole product story. For AI detection, "review this evidence in context" seems more honest than "trust this score." Would you keep the warning text visible on every report, or make it collapsible so the main result stays easier to scan? Disclosure: I work on a small AI detector/reporting workflow, but I am intentionally not linking it here. I am asking about software and report design, not promoting a site.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      507
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      181
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      86
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!