Over time, I needed a more powerful NAS server.

A good amount of time has passed since I purchased a Synology DS720+ NAS server, about four years. Over these four years, my Synology NAS server has grown from simply storing large (by home standards) files with the nice extra features of the built-in Synology software to a full-fledged video hosting service, an automated media library, a gaming server, and hosting all sorts of Docker containers. Over the four years of using the server, its modest 10 gigabytes of RAM and not-so-modest 8 terabytes of HDD space began to run out due to increasing demands, and I began to consider purchasing a new, more powerful server that could also meet my needs now and in the near future. When discussing buying a new server with various people, the vast majority of the advice was extreme, and this post is about how I chose a new, more powerful server, an operating system for it, and the overall outcome so far.

!!! The translation was made using Google Translate without editing and may contain inaccuracies in the translation. !!!

Choosing Hardware for a New Server

Since the first main task was to buy a much more powerful NAS server than I currently have, here's my rough outline of what I need for a new server:

The first extreme I encountered in the advice I received was buying a full-fledged rackmount dual-processor server. Yes, such a server would last me a very, very long time, but the point of placing such a server at home in my conditions would be zero due to its bulkiness and incredible noise. I don't know if this was a joke in response to my vague request for power, but the fact of an inappropriate extreme is present here.

As always, I first tried choosing from the most common and popular options available online, using the first links I found, namely Synology, QNAP, Asustor, and TerraMaster. They all have the same drawback. They are literally identical in terms of hardware, and in this regard, in my opinion, there is no competition between these companies. The maximum performance increase will be double that of the Celeron J4125, based on synthetic benchmarks, and the maximum RAM will be 32 GB, based on the specifications offered by companies. Yes, the increase in performance would be insignificant, but NAS devices themselves are designed primarily for file storage and nothing more. I wanted something more from this form factor. In a pinch, you can always build your own server as small as possible, but I wanted to keep searching.

After six months of searching, I learned that the Minisforum N5 Pro server has been released. The specs are simply outstanding:

The only thing that put me off this server was that it was from a Chinese company, Minisforum, and from my personal experience, the quality and support of Chinese hardware left much to be desired. But I still took the risk and so far everything is fine with this server. I was even able to update its UEFI via EFI-Shell. This server's performance is several times greater than anything else currently available on the NAS server market, and the supported RAM capacity is sufficient for the long term. Considering the processor has an integrated NPU and that Linux will soon (unknown at the time of purchase) add support for these NPUs and AMD graphics cards directly into the Linux kernel, it gave me many new possibilities that I will gradually implement for myself in the future. And so, after purchasing a new server with the risk of possible poor support and a Chinese manufacturer, it was time to choose an operating system for it.

Choosing an operating system for a new powerful server

The second main issue I spent a long time pondering (and am still unsure of my choice) was the question, “Which operating system should I install from the many available that would satisfy me as well as Synology's?” Yes, I adore the features of Synology's web interface, and after a long search, I could only find one project that was 99% as user-friendly as Synology's, but more on that later. While I was pondering it, I considered various options for how I could organize a convenient workflow with my new powerful server. In the end, I decided that I would leave Synology for better file interaction and storage, even if that meant completely tying myself to the company and purchasing their servers in the future. I would relegate the powerful server to a full-fledged secondary server for running demanding tasks.

Searching for a system with a browser-based desktop

The very first operating system I tried on the new server was their original Minisforum operating system, which they released as a beta version. Their operating system literally felt like a typical Chinese hack, thrown together without a clear development plan, with rigorous experimentation and strange ideas about how to use their operating system. While the installation went smoothly, the typical Chinese quirks begin. Instead of the classic browser-based web interface, this operating system requires downloading and installing their clunky application on your computer, then going through the process of creating an administrator account and logging into the operating system. Their application itself opens the classic desktop interface, similar to what you'd see with other companies, but that's where the classic server management system ends, and a uniquely Chinese approach begins. There are almost no settings, even basic ones. The only security system is their unique way of interacting with the server. Classic file management approaches consist of pre-assigned locations where you can't put other types of files. As a system administrator, you literally can't do anything related to viewing all user files. There's a Docker app, but it's useless due to the lack of even the most basic container configuration options (you can only allocate one volume to a container, but no more). After trying to play around with all of this, I completely abandoned the idea of ​​ever trying to use their original operating system and began considering other operating systems.

After becoming completely disillusioned with the Minisforum operating system, I returned to the idea of ​​installing an operating system specialized for NAS servers or home labs. I considered options such as OpenMediaVault, TrueNAS, Proxmox, UnRAID, Casa OS, Xpenology, YunoHost, ArozOS, and others. Of all the options, I was most drawn to ArozOS, as it literally satisfied me more than all the others (with a couple of exceptions) and was the most similar to the Synology operating system. The other options didn't suit me for many reasons, ranging from the most significant, such as the complete lack of a browser-based desktop, to minor ones, such as the complete lack of built-in file management, which required workarounds in the form of third-party projects that forced the use of their own file management paradigm in their own closed and/or completely isolated environments.

Continuing to explore all the options I found and various online recommendations, I first took a closer look at operating systems such as YunoHost or Casa OS. While reviewing solutions for issues that bothered me, I increasingly realized that all these people who suggested installing Nextcloud for files either had absolutely no idea how to read the questions and what exactly they were being asked to recommend, or they completely lacked the logic to come up with a solution that wasn't a hack. Every time you ask these people for clarification or direct them to the right advice, more and more hacks for seemingly simple problems start popping up. What's most terrifying is that these people work for IT companies and most likely act in exactly the same way, implementing a plethora of unnecessary hacks that complicate processes and system maintenance instead of spending more time searching for something simpler and more suitable. So, options like installing a base operating system (such as Debian) or installing operating systems like Casa OS, which I believe are more focused on service interaction, were completely out of the question for me. However, I still kept these options as a last resort, in case I couldn't find anything more suitable or convenient for attempting to replicate the interactions offered by Synology.

The next operating systems I considered and considered were Proxmox, Xpenology, TrueNAS, and the like. Xpenology was immediately ruled out as a primary operating system because it's literally Synology's operating system, and it had the same fairly old Linux kernel, which would have limited me in some tasks and experiments just as much as the original Synology system (I tried playing around with running Steam games through a browser inside a Docker container, but the Linux kernel was too old for that, and 99% of the time, it didn't work for me). However, I did consider installing it inside a Proxmox virtual machine.

The idea of ​​Proxmox was obvious. The virtualization feature would offer huge advantages, and it's a suitable scenario for most people. Proxmox could have been a good fit for me, if not for one thing. Proxmox doesn't natively support Docker containers. This operating system can only interact with LXC containers. I absolutely didn't want to create a separate virtual machine specifically for Docker containers. Firstly, it would be a clear hurdle, requiring a layer of complexity between Docker containers and the rest of the system. Secondly, I'd have to think about allocating resources to a virtual machine running Docker containers every time. Also, planning ahead for who, how much, and what to allocate to virtual machines and how they interacted would have become a separate task and even more hurdles, so I put that option aside, but I haven't forgotten about it, as it's another viable option for me.

TrueNAS, UnRAID, and similar operating systems (including Xpenology) as primary server operating systems are also a completely separate set of tasks and require a separate consideration of capabilities and interactions with the server. If you've already noticed that I've divided the various operating systems into separate groups, you might also have noticed that these separate groups create distinctly different server setup and usage scenarios, not to mention the vastly different capabilities I'd have for the present and future. In this particular situation, all of these options, with the exception of Xpenology (remember, the kernel is outdated and unsuitable for future use), offer all the necessary capabilities I need, with the exception of file interaction via a web interface and a browser-based desktop in general. However, by this point, I've somewhat resigned myself to trying to find at least some solution that would provide me with the same convenient browser-based server interaction as Synology DSM.

The last thing I could find online weren't full-fledged operating systems, but rather layers between full-fledged operating systems and a browser. These were designed as full-fledged browser-based operating systems that you could access from any browser and get a graphical interface for managing your server with normal, classic file interactions, just like you would with a regular graphical shell. This is exactly what I was looking for! Such projects include EyeOS, Oneye, FriendOS, and Doky. It's incredibly difficult to find such projects, especially just to stumble upon them, especially if they're not archived. Among all the old, forgotten, and archived projects, I stumbled upon a truly brilliant project that has been in development for many years and which is not at all embarrassing to have as a browser interface. This is ArozOS. This project is exactly what I expect from all the advice and posts online when I ask about alternatives to the Synology DSM operating system. This combines a browser-based desktop, convenient file interaction, and most (if not all) of the basic features I expect from operating systems similar to Synology DSM. Yes, this project has its drawbacks and pitfalls, but it's literally the closest I've come to meeting all my needs in a browser-based desktop for my new NAS server!

Final Operating System Selection

It took me quite a while to find the ArozOS project. I'd already been disappointed with everything I'd found during my extensive search, and finally decided to give in and accept the fact that I wouldn't see a browser-based system similar to Synology DSM. I decided to think about it, study the existing options in more detail, and just start trying things out. After some thought, I settled on the TrueNAS operating system. Yes, this system has absolutely no adequate file interaction via its web interface, but since I already had a Synology DS720+ server and it worked perfectly, I decided, instead of completely migrating everything, to stick with what I had and simply repurpose my new, powerful server from a general-purpose one to one designed for demanding tasks only. I'd agree that I wouldn't frequently access its settings and would rarely interact with the server except for service updates (the logic of ironclad operation of services configured perfectly the first time). And I can say that I managed to accomplish my goal well enough that I can call my long journey from lengthy theory to rapid practice a complete success. The only drawback I still have is a residual, complete dependence on Synology servers and services, but it's worth it. It's not for nothing that their Synology DSM operating system is the benchmark and literally the best solution for people who prefer the “plug and play” approach without any unnecessary configuration. And just in case something happens to the Synology company itself, thanks to my long and fascinating search, I will always have the option of ArozOS.

Here's where we draw the line, as this is sort of the end of my post, and I can conclude with the following afterword.

As a result, I have a second powerful (for home use) Minisforum N5 Pro server with two 8 terabyte HDDs, running the TrueNAS operating system and deploying Portainer for Docker containers, where I run demanding services like PeerTube and Automediacenter (Jellyfin, Sonarr, Radarr, etc.). I was finally able to launch games through a browser inside a Steam-headless Docker container (there are some nuances like TinyVNC that make it impossible to play in real life, but the FPS in games is finally adequate), and now I have plenty of space for game servers. I still can't use the AMD NPU, but I hope this feature will become available soon. Thanks to AMD pushing its graphics card drivers and amdxdna into the Linux kernel, when the new global TrueNAS version was released, they updated the Linux kernel to version 6.18, which already includes the graphics card drivers. Unfortunately, the amdxdna version is from an alpha or beta release, so we're stuck with version 0.1.0 in the kernel instead of the required 1.1.0.0 to use the NPU in the processor. I've been disappointed more than once with the TrueNAS system itself and the developers of this operating system since I've used it. Yes, I understand this is a very, very difficult task, but TrueNAS lacks a significant number of features, such as convenient firewall configuration, and numerous aspects of the web interface make the TrueNAS operating system itself directly dependent on external firewalls, NAT, and other dependencies that prevent the TrueNAS server from being placed directly in the router's DMZ (Demilitarized Zone). I'll be disappointed with this operating system many times over, but for my specific situation, I can't think of a better solution that I've been able to achieve at this time.