Install (and run) both OMV and Windows on the same machine?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Install (and run) both OMV and Windows on the same machine?

      Hi Guys,

      I've been trying to understand this platform as much as possible before I make my next move. I'm currently running OMV on a rpi3 and I'm not satisfied with the performance.

      I am planing to switch to a server which I build from scratch. I will not cheap out on components so hopefully it will last me a long time before becoming obsolete. I also do not have a PC now and sometimes it just comes in handy to have a PC (I only have a mac and bootcamp is jut not working for some reason, too lazy to dig into it).

      So I will be building a PC and have an 128GB SSD dedicated to being the boot hard drive. Of course I will install OMV on it but I'm also wanting to install windows as well.

      What I'm trying to achieve is a dual boot thing where you're prompted to boot into OMV/linux or into windows when you turn on the PC. I understand you cannot run both together. And I understand that when I', using windows, my server is down. And I also understand the HDD storage that is dedicated for my OMV NAS will not be accessible through windows. I truly just want windows so if I ever need it, it's there.

      So I'm not too sure how to handle it. Can the same SSD have windows and linux? How to proceed with that? Is their any side-effects to such a setup?

      To be clear, I will not install anything on windows, it will be very lightweight and basically just the interface (the main reason I need it is to update my radar detector which is only feasible on windows! :P ).

      Please give me your opinion/experience. I would really appreciate detailed instructions as I have no experience in dual-booting.

      Thank you!
    • You could probably set up a dual boot for OMV and Windows, but the standard OMV iso images would not work - you'd have to install Debian Linux of the proper version as the Linux part of the dual boot and then install OMV on top of that.

      You can google "dual boot" and find a huge number of reference materials and HOWTOs, no need to regurgitate all that here.

      You could also try just installing Windows on the drive and run OMV in a virtual machine in Windows running Virtualbox, VMWare or similar.

      That way the would both be running simultaneously.
      OMV 4.x - ASRock Rack C2550D4I - 16GB ECC - Silverstone DS380

      The post was edited 1 time, last by gderf ().

    • gderf wrote:

      You could probably set up a dual boot for OMV and Windows. I think that there would be very, very few people here doing that though.

      You can google "dual boot" and find a huge number of reference materials and HOWTOs, no need to regurgitate all that here.

      You could also try just installing Windows on the drive and run OMV in a virtual machine in Windows running Virtualbox, VMWare or similar.

      That way the would both be running simultaneously.
      Yeah I'm realizing this may be a rather uncommon thing and could be a bad decision to be a snowflake and differ from everyone :P

      Also, I'm not a big fan of virtual machines. For instance I'd like OMV to have full control. For example consider the auto-shutdown plugins, how would they behave in a virtual machine? Probably it will be annoying to deal with.

      On second thought, I think it would be wisest to jut stick to OMV running alone. IF I need to use windows, I know how to make a bootable/portable windows version. So I will simply turn off OMV, plug in the usb and boot from it. Do whatever I need to do then rebot into OMV... Probably safer not to mess things up.
    • It's a bit of a weird idea, since both OSs have different purposes and are aimed at different sorts of machines. Windows typically goes on a desktop machine with a keyboard, a mouse, and a monitor that you put to sleep when you're not using it. OMV is designed for a headless machine dedicated to storage that can go under the desk or in a closet, without keyboard or monitor, that runs 24/7. You wouldn't want or need Windows on a machine like that.

      Maybe you need to consider getting two machines. You don't need a full blown PC as a NAS, so it can be relatively cheap.
    • Nibb31 wrote:

      It's a bit of a weird idea, since both OSs have different purposes and are aimed at different sorts of machines. Windows typically goes on a desktop machine with a keyboard, a mouse, and a monitor that you put to sleep when you're not using it. OMV is designed for a headless machine dedicated to storage that can go under the desk or in a closet, without keyboard or monitor, that runs 24/7. You wouldn't want or need Windows on a machine like that.

      Maybe you need to consider getting two machines. You don't need a full blown PC as a NAS, so it can be relatively cheap.
      I agree. Honestly it's mainly for NAS but given that now I have another computer I thought why not throw a windows OS in case I need it. But yeah, I'm aborting the idea.

      I do not need a powerful PC for NAS, but what about Plex transcoding? I was thinking about the Ryzen 5 1600X processor along with 8GB of RAM. Is it an over-kill? I would hate to be over-paying for power I will not use, but also I would not want to end up needing to upgrade my server soon because plex cannot transcode movies fast enough.
    • gderf wrote:

      Read this for ideas about how much CPU Plex needs.

      support.plex.tv/articles/20177…-do-i-need-for-my-server/
      I actually did read it before. This Ryzen is ~13K passmark so would run >6 instances smoothly. But my concern is just for the future. What if 4K becomes more common (and it probably will), What if I get a room-mate, etc...

      I jut want ta system that would not let me down for the next 10yrs or so, but also wouldn't want to waste a fortune on it...
    • You really only need to be concerned about having to transcode. If your media will play directly, you don't need monster CPU power, even for multiple simultaneous streams.

      Having said that I don't think it's really possible to be 10 years out future proof regardless how much money you throw at it today.
      OMV 4.x - ASRock Rack C2550D4I - 16GB ECC - Silverstone DS380
    • gderf wrote:

      You really only need to be concerned about having to transcode. If your media will play directly, you don't need monster CPU power, even for multiple simultaneous streams.

      Having said that I don't think it's really possible to be 10 years out future proof regardless how much money you throw at it today.
      Yes I read this on Plex website. So to be clear, transcoding is only needed for users accessing my server over the internet rather than the local wifi? Let's say I'm streaming a movie on my ipad in my apartment, plex would only have to "send" the file as is without really processing it much, right?
    • No, you misunderstand transcoding.

      If the client application (regardless where it is located in a network sense) can play the content directly - ie it supports the required codecs, then the content is merely uploaded to the device and played.

      If the client application cannot play the content directly, then it tells Plex what formats it can play directly, Plex then transcodes the original file into that directly playable format, and then uploads the transcoded file to the player.

      Transcoding video can involve several elements, any of which might need to be transcoded. The audio, video or both may need to be transcoded. Also, certain subtitles might need to be "burned into" the video, and this requires transcoding the video to assemble the two.
      OMV 4.x - ASRock Rack C2550D4I - 16GB ECC - Silverstone DS380
    • gderf wrote:

      No, you misunderstand transcoding.

      If the client application (regardless where it is located in a network sense) can play the content directly - ie it supports the required codecs, then the content is merely uploaded to the device and played.

      If the client application cannot play the content directly, then it tells Plex what formats it can play directly, Plex then transcodes the original file into that directly playable format, and then uploads the transcoded file to the player.

      Transcoding video can involve several elements, any of which might need to be transcoded. The audio, video or both may need to be transcoded. Also, certain subtitles might need to be "burned into" the video, and this requires transcoding the video to assemble the two.
      Oh, I totally thought otherwise.

      This is a bit surprising to me because this would mean the client device needs to do some processing of its own (if it has the codec). For some reason I thought only KODI required clients to do their own processing while plex does the processing and sends it to the device.

      But this is actually good news. It means that I may run 20 clients with none of them requiring transcoding, jut simple uploading of the file.

      I guess this is a vague question now, but how would you know what codec each client has? Isn't the codec a software feature? All the clients will be using the plex client app, so wouldn't this mean they will all have the same codecs? Or is it something dependent on the hardware as well?

      Once Plex transcodes a file, does it save it somewhere so it is ready to be served next time a device requests it, or does it have to re-transcode it everytime it is requested?

      So I guess now I will need to read more about the capability of my devices in order to understand either I really need transcoding capability on my server or not... Thank you for clearing the concept for me, and sorry for bombarding you with questions!
    • You should be able to find out what clients have which codecs. For example, the Plex app on my Roku 3 can not play x265 video directly so those files must be transcoded by Plex before being uploaded to the Roku.
      However, the Plex app on my iPhone 7 Plus can play x265 directly, so no transcoding is needed. The codecs may or may not be done in hardware, but I don't really know.

      Plex is capable of creating "optimized versions" that are transcodes made in advance of being viewed and stored on the server. The problem with this is that it leaves two copies of the file on the server, but I suppose the original version could be deleted once the optimization is complete. I do not use this feature at all, so I don't know much about it. See here for more info:

      support.plex.tv/articles/214079318-media-optimizer-overview/

      Transcodes done on the fly do not leave the transcoded version of the file behind so a second play will be transcoded again.

      The Plex forums are a great source of information, so read there too if you don't already.
      OMV 4.x - ASRock Rack C2550D4I - 16GB ECC - Silverstone DS380
    • gderf wrote:

      You should be able to find out what clients have which codecs. For example, the Plex app on my Roku 3 can not play x265 video directly so those files must be transcoded by Plex before being uploaded to the Roku.
      However, the Plex app on my iPhone 7 Plus can play x265 directly, so no transcoding is needed. The codecs may or may not be done in hardware, but I don't really know.

      Plex is capable of creating "optimized versions" that are transcodes made in advance of being viewed and stored on the server. The problem with this is that it leaves two copies of the file on the server, but I suppose the original version could be deleted once the optimization is complete. I do not use this feature at all, so I don't know much about it. See here for more info:

      support.plex.tv/articles/214079318-media-optimizer-overview/

      Transcodes done on the fly do not leave the transcoded version of the file behind so a second play will be transcoded again.

      The Plex forums are a great source of information, so read there too if you don't already.
      I see.
      I definitely need to read more on the plex forums.
      Same applies for Rasplex forums (this is the interface I'm planing to use on my TV and friend's TV).

      Thanks!
    • Dropkick Murphy wrote:

      Get Hyper-V 2016 for free, install 2 virtual machines and you are done

      Pietia(lania) wrote:

      Hyper-v is bad option ;) it's havy

      better option is use esix free

      1) instal esic
      2) install on VM OMV
      3) install on VM windows
      4) pass GPU and others to windows
      Not too sure which option would be faster. But wouldn't running windows as a virtual machine (in the case of esix) make it slower? Would I be still able to use it for gaming?
    • Dropkick Murphy wrote:

      Install Windows 10 on hardware. Use it for gaming. Give it Hyper-V role.
      Install OMV in VM.

      done
      Thank you for the reply. I feel like using Hyper-V would end up being faster than ESIX. Becase with hyper-V the resourcces are all coming to windows and it is redirecting to the VM, rahter than windows itself being a VM (such as in ESIX).

      Just another question though. Would the VM be able to still run if I put my windows to sleep? Not completely off, not hibernate, just to sleep... Do you know is the VM would still keep working?

      Thanks!