Hi,
I own a Qnap nas with Celeron dual core Cpu
I’d like to use the router os own it to test as router my qnap.
I’ve the possibility to use Docker container and Virtualization station.
Please could you suggest me the best way to use the routerOs ?
thanks
ROS is not possible to run on your QNAP device, if you truly want to experience ROS download CHR and buy a desired license for your use case and install it on your preferred virtualization platform like Proxmox,HyperV, and Vmware. Just wondering why you want to run ROS in your storage device though
Because this way he’ll be able to install ROSE package and turn his CHR into NAS 
.
priceless 
interesting perfect!!
I’ve just installed Ros CHR in a virtual machine on my Qnap nas.
I thought it was possible to use Docker too.
Docker on CHR in VM on Qnap NAS ??
OK … why not…
https://tangentsoft.com/mikrotik/wiki?name=Containers+Are+Not+VMs
(section: CHR Complications)
thanks for your reply but I’d like to know your opinion about the better solution.
The better solution ?
Don’t put CHR in VM on QNAP.
I think some others already hinted into that direction…
why ? I’ve just done and it works …
do you mean Docker instead VM
It’s not because something can be done that you should do it.
Already to start it’s crazy to install CHR in VM on Qnap.
Yes, you can do it.
Is it sensible to do so ? Not so much. Performance wise it’s (to say it politely) not so smart.
And then you want to dive a virtualization level deeper using docker on that same CHR (which already runs inside a virtual environment on its own) ?
Put that docker container at least directly on Qnap then.
That last option might make more sense.
I also have some dockers running on my Synology.
I would never think about putting CHR on there.
I’ve just used a docker in my nas.
I read a lot of people are using the RouterOS on Proxmox system in a minipc hardware.
RouterOS is a complete OS (including jernel and drivers) so it’s not intended to be run inside a container. CHR is RouterOS variant intended to be run inside a VM (like Proxmox or Virtualization station) but expects to see certain type of (virtualized) hardware … if virtualization engine can provide it, then fine.
Conceptually running ROS on a NAS device feels awkward (equally so does running NAS functionality on a router hardware). Sure it’s possible … as much as transporting people on a tractor trailer (instead of using a bus).
I thank you for thinking of my article, @holvoetn, but I think it’s misapplied in the context of this thread.
First, a nit: you’ll want to remove the “&p” bit from the end of the bookmarks you have, as Fossil’s latest anti-bot defenses consider this a “complicated” URL, forcing a redirect to a “honeypot” page meant to trap bots, keeping them from running up the CPU usage of the host to no good end. I don’t know why Fossil puts that particular query parameter on /wiki URLs by default, but it doesn’t help, and it does hurt now.
(The symptom is hidden from you, @holvoetn, because you have a login on my site, and presenting a valid login cookie bypasses this defense. When others click the URL, they get sent to the honeypot.)
Moving on to more substantial matters, while the container vs VM confusion is real, as my article goes to some pains to point out, QNAP offers both a VM feature (referenced by @mkx above, “Virtualization Station”) and also a version of Docker Engine that they call Container Station. CHR should run on the first (didn’t try it) but won’t run on the second.
The proper application of my article’s lessons here is, don’t run containers on QNAP via CHR. Run them directly under Container Station instead.
As to the question of the wisdom of using a QNAP box as a router, the best objection I can come up with is, why would you want a one- or two-port router? Few QNAP boxes have more. There are other features in RouterOS besides just “routing,” but then, QNAP’s OSes provide a lot of that, too. (e.g. VPNs.) Dragging CHR into the mix is likely to add complexity without adding necessary features.
I could justify CHR on QNAP for homelabbing, with the free version, but not as a real router, pushing substantial flows.
Corrected in the first occurence 