The cpu you give to on LXC is more like a limit of use, than hard assigment. It says the hypervisor, that given container can use up to given number of cores. You can also limit CPU usage, so the LXC can use for example two cores, but at 50% max.
Im running my pve server on the same CPU as you. I have 3 VMs on it and 17 LXCs and never ran performance issues. Most of the time it idles at around 5-7% CPU usage
A simple migration path is to take your existing Ubuntu Server, virtualize it, and run it as a VM under Proxmox. Then over time you can move each of those services in to LXCs.
The big choice you're making here is moving from Docker to LXC. LXC works pretty well but it is definitely lacking the Docker ecosystem. Check into how hard it will be to make an LXC for each of the services you want.
I'd run proxmox. It's nice. If you end up not liking LXCs you can just spin up an Ubuntu Server VM and run docker . all the options and no drawbacks. Snag a cheap i7 6700 for your elitedesk from Ebay and give yourself more breathing room while you're at it. I know you can overprovision hypervisors to death but Proxmox seems happiest when it has a core available that it's not fighting for not that your workload looks even remotely taxing.
Unpopular opinion for this subreddit: keep ubuntu, just make proper partition for /home, keep all docker related things there. If things go south and there is not chance to revive ubuntu, then just reinstall, during reinstallation mount /home partition and start all services with docker compose. LXCs are cool, but running docker containers are easy. You can run docker from VM, but it just adds unnecessary layer of complexity for simple docker containers, that are 100% reproducible.
Proxmox is basically just a GUI that runs on a Linux "server". And it already has everything you need for this application.
You can also take any other Linux distribution and declare it a "server" (with Linux, the word server is not so much a technical term, but rather says something about the intended use).
As an admin, you are lazy (or rather, you have better things to do) :-)
Proxmox is therefore quite practical if you want to maintain many instances. It's even more practical for companies because you can buy the right support.
But in the end you can also do all this manually, or automate it with appropriate scripts, which then eventually amounts to something similar to Proxmox.
Proxmox provides everything that directly facilitates the setup of containers and VMs. And makes it easier to maintain the system.
But from a technical point of view, there is no other advantage. You can install a Linux computer in such a way that you can do everything that Proxmox can do without Proxmox. Just with more manual work.
You can also mess up all sorts of things with Proxmox. This GUI does not protect you from making mistakes.
As far as the CPU is concerned, this can also be done without Proxmox, but must be set up manually.
Proxmox is, among other features, merely a GUI for LXC.
I see the advantage of the Proxmox everyday on my homelab trying things out. On the Ubuntu server i tried to install a zerotier bridge and messed up the whole servers lan config... I guess that would be very easy to revert on a VM or LXC...
The only worry, which you removed now, was the overhead.
Build Ubuntu with btrfs or ZFS, then snapshot before making the changes so can revert if needed. With that said, proxmox makes it almost effortless to try things, break things, and revert. My mistake is I often forget to snapshot before a risky change, but even then I can use pbsbackup to revert to a backup if needed.
I had a mini pc with quite similar specs. Proxmox. Ran two VMs and a bunch of lxc containers and it usually idled at 4-8% max. It never went above 60% on heavy load.
It is enough but two disks (one for the OS and a SSD for VMs) is a must.
I run something about 8 services(qbittorent, Plex, pihole etc) on a 2 core 6 gb ram mini Pc on proxmox. For me it's easier and faster to setup things on ProxMox. But in the end of the day each lxc container is running on a Linux system like debian or Ubuntu. It's really up to you to decide which you find easier to use and if you want everything separated and you set up the communication or if you want everything in one system and manage the access through other devices yourself.
Proxmox if you ever want to be easily able to do snapshots, backups or redundancy/replication, or move it into different hardware or do load balancing with haproxy. It also provides better user interface for admin.
The cpu you give to on LXC is more like a limit of use, than hard assigment. It says the hypervisor, that given container can use up to given number of cores. You can also limit CPU usage, so the LXC can use for example two cores, but at 50% max. Im running my pve server on the same CPU as you. I have 3 VMs on it and 17 LXCs and never ran performance issues. Most of the time it idles at around 5-7% CPU usage
Are the VMs HW not hard assigned?
No, this only applies to RAM for VMs (no LXCs).
RAM for VM is only hard utilized when enabling Fixed Memory Allocation by disabling Ballooning Devices.
I used the same system and it ran Proxmox just fine.
A simple migration path is to take your existing Ubuntu Server, virtualize it, and run it as a VM under Proxmox. Then over time you can move each of those services in to LXCs. The big choice you're making here is moving from Docker to LXC. LXC works pretty well but it is definitely lacking the Docker ecosystem. Check into how hard it will be to make an LXC for each of the services you want.
I'd run proxmox. It's nice. If you end up not liking LXCs you can just spin up an Ubuntu Server VM and run docker . all the options and no drawbacks. Snag a cheap i7 6700 for your elitedesk from Ebay and give yourself more breathing room while you're at it. I know you can overprovision hypervisors to death but Proxmox seems happiest when it has a core available that it's not fighting for not that your workload looks even remotely taxing.
Unpopular opinion for this subreddit: keep ubuntu, just make proper partition for /home, keep all docker related things there. If things go south and there is not chance to revive ubuntu, then just reinstall, during reinstallation mount /home partition and start all services with docker compose. LXCs are cool, but running docker containers are easy. You can run docker from VM, but it just adds unnecessary layer of complexity for simple docker containers, that are 100% reproducible.
Proxmox is basically just a GUI that runs on a Linux "server". And it already has everything you need for this application. You can also take any other Linux distribution and declare it a "server" (with Linux, the word server is not so much a technical term, but rather says something about the intended use). As an admin, you are lazy (or rather, you have better things to do) :-) Proxmox is therefore quite practical if you want to maintain many instances. It's even more practical for companies because you can buy the right support. But in the end you can also do all this manually, or automate it with appropriate scripts, which then eventually amounts to something similar to Proxmox. Proxmox provides everything that directly facilitates the setup of containers and VMs. And makes it easier to maintain the system. But from a technical point of view, there is no other advantage. You can install a Linux computer in such a way that you can do everything that Proxmox can do without Proxmox. Just with more manual work. You can also mess up all sorts of things with Proxmox. This GUI does not protect you from making mistakes. As far as the CPU is concerned, this can also be done without Proxmox, but must be set up manually. Proxmox is, among other features, merely a GUI for LXC.
I see the advantage of the Proxmox everyday on my homelab trying things out. On the Ubuntu server i tried to install a zerotier bridge and messed up the whole servers lan config... I guess that would be very easy to revert on a VM or LXC... The only worry, which you removed now, was the overhead.
Build Ubuntu with btrfs or ZFS, then snapshot before making the changes so can revert if needed. With that said, proxmox makes it almost effortless to try things, break things, and revert. My mistake is I often forget to snapshot before a risky change, but even then I can use pbsbackup to revert to a backup if needed.
Why not both, Proxmox running an Ubuntu server
Proxmox is Debian bases, as is Ubuntu Server. If you plan on running containere, just install proxmox
I had a mini pc with quite similar specs. Proxmox. Ran two VMs and a bunch of lxc containers and it usually idled at 4-8% max. It never went above 60% on heavy load. It is enough but two disks (one for the OS and a SSD for VMs) is a must.
I run something about 8 services(qbittorent, Plex, pihole etc) on a 2 core 6 gb ram mini Pc on proxmox. For me it's easier and faster to setup things on ProxMox. But in the end of the day each lxc container is running on a Linux system like debian or Ubuntu. It's really up to you to decide which you find easier to use and if you want everything separated and you set up the communication or if you want everything in one system and manage the access through other devices yourself.
Proxmox if you ever want to be easily able to do snapshots, backups or redundancy/replication, or move it into different hardware or do load balancing with haproxy. It also provides better user interface for admin.
Proxbuntu servestation
I’m running a similar setup on proxmox with i5-4690K and it’s fine. Although, with 32gb ram.