Archlinux as the Server Operating System

raja.name · 2008-12-31 21:52:53

I have been switching many GNU/Linux distributions for the past few years on my desktop and laptop until I installed Archlinux. I am running Archlinux on my laptop and desktop for the past 6 months and I use my systems mainly for web and application development. Currently, I am planning to host a blog and community website on a Virtual Private Server (VPS). When I shopped around for VPS providers, I found most of the companies only support GNU/Linux distributions like Debian, Gentoo, Fedora and Centos. I would like to use Archlinux for my VPS just because Archlinux is my favorite GNU/Linux distribution. Though I managed to get an OpenVZ based VPS running Archlinux, I would like to know from the Archlinux community about how they feel about the idea of using Archlinux for production servers.

Last edited by raja.name (2008-12-31 21:56:49)

muczyjoe · 2008-12-31 22:01:12

I'm building a home server nowadays, and I'm also thinking on installing Arch as a server Linux, but...
My main problem is, that Arch receives updates too frequently, so this is why, it isn't the ideal server OS.
Can anybody give us some experiences with running Arch as a server OS. (Only server, so not desktop+server apps!

marxav · 2008-12-31 22:01:14

That is discussed here http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=50021

jacko · 2008-12-31 22:23:26

http://www.linode.com

Best vps hosting around and yes, they have archlinux.

I used it for about a year when I ran a game server for a bunch of friends. I used arch and only updated monthly. Thing about a server is you won't be needing a lot of extra bloat. So the rolling release model is still ok since most base packages don't get updated that often.

What makes a difference if you use a 6 month release or a rolling release distro if they still only break every 6 months or so? There is no difference expect with a rolling release model the offending package is more easily noticable. Downgrading is easy with arch and linode allows you a backdoor to your server fs so even if things do goto shit you can still fix it easy enough.

You will be easily satisfied with linode.com, do yourself a favor and sign up if you want a vps. They pro-rate your account, even upon cancelation.

Last edited by jacko (2008-12-31 22:25:57)

raja.name · 2008-12-31 22:27:43

Thanks for the link marxav. I missed that thread. Is the "rolling release" positive or negative feature in a server environment? I got my desktop broken couple of times by not updating my Archlinux system for a long time. Also, I was using unstable enlightenment desktop environment that time. Will there be a risk of broken system (not bootable system) if I consistently keep my Archlinux server updated at least once every month?

phildg · 2009-01-01 01:24:24

Remember that these forums, the main site, mailing lists, all the infrastructure for Arch is run on an Arch64 server.

If you carefully read the output of pacman -Syu, and follow the announce list you should rarely have problems, major or numerous related package updates normally sit in testing for a while to ensure things don't break when they are moved to core/extra.

Having said that, however, I personally do not like the idea of a rolling release system for a server, I don't like updating a production system, therefore updates are restricted to security vulnerabilities and bugs fixes that affect me.

All my desktops/laptops run Arch though, and have been 99% trouble free

sand_man · 2009-01-01 01:29:11

muczyjoe, Arch doesn't "receive" updates. It's up to you whether or not you upgrade any packages. I do not pacman -Syu at all on my server. There is no reason to because it works the way I need it to.

sokuban · 2009-01-01 01:43:21

Yea but you have to pacman -Syu all the time to get the latest security updates.

Other distros still give security patches to frozen repos.

Sjoden · 2009-01-01 01:57:14

I've had an Arch server(VPS) with Slicehost for about 8 months now, no issues whatsoever. They have AJAX web console access if for some reason you lock yourself out of ssh. It's pretty great since you can watch the whole output of a reboot.

Misfit138 · 2009-01-01 02:39:40

sokuban wrote:

Yea but you have to pacman -Syu all the time to get the latest security updates.
Other distros still give security patches to frozen repos.

lolwut

sand_man · 2009-01-01 03:22:40

So you pacman -S the updates you need. What's the difference to any other distro?

timetrap · 2009-01-01 03:24:35

I have been running an Arch Server at home for about 3 months. No real problems. I pacman -Syu about once a week (or once every two weeks).

Honestly. I like it.

Keeping it as close to the 'core' repo as possible will remove almost all update problems. Then install only what you need. No xorg, alsa/oss, gnome, kde, etc. it's a server. Not a desktop.

timetrap · 2009-01-01 03:39:08

sand_man wrote:

So you pacman -S the updates you need. What's the difference to any other distro?

The difference is that there is not a "stable" version. Although "stable" is overrated when compared to "useful".

Rolling Release is a scary concept when first presented. Not having a version number associated with an installation can be daunting.

In reality though, nothing is truly "stable"; patches, updates, and service packs, on every OS make them different (sometimes radically so) from the original shipped version.

After using Arch for 6 months I can say that it isn't much different (updating-wise) than anything else. Except when something breaks, you know enough about your system to fix it.

raja.name · 2009-01-02 05:52:40

I use the minimal X86_64 Archlinux version on my VPS and have setup a typical LAMP server. Every time I do the full system update using pacman -Syu and clean up using pacman -Scc, I still loose some disk space. Currently, I use core, extra and community repositories. Is it safe to enable community repository on my VPS?

georgia_tech_swagger · 2009-01-02 15:16:24

sand_man wrote:

So you pacman -S the updates you need. What's the difference to any other distro?

Stability. Even I'm not insane enough to put Arch on a production server. I use Gentoo for that. If a package is screwed up ... I can easily choose from several versions in the main repos to install from. And let's face it ... it's not like Arch has been as stable as bedrock. As major upgrades transpire, things tend to break. While "waiting a day or two" is fine on your desktop, it's usually unacceptable on a server.

pyther · 2009-01-02 15:46:26

Part of that has to do with experience though...

It may be 2-3 days to fixed upstream, but you can usually fix whatever by yourself. The key is making sure of what your updating. If a new package comes out maybe give it a day or two before installing it.

The other thing to consider is how important is uptime? If you have to reboot the server, is it going to get you fired? Arch can be just a good as any other distro on a production server, but it really just depends on what your needs are.

iBertus · 2009-01-02 16:59:20

I'd say it really depends on your requirements and for what the server will be used. If you need 99% uptime, then maybe something like CentOS or the like. If you can tolerate the occasional need to iron out issues with new software, Arch will server you well. Most admins tend to run on the conservative side when it comes to installing software updates, favoring stability and security over new feature additions. Arch will have the newest versions of all packages regardless of the benefit of the update. That said, the devs won't knowingly push really broken updated versions onto the masses.

catwell · 2009-01-02 17:58:49

My personal server an Archlinux x86_64 Xen VPS (SliceHost Slice). It hosts my email, webpage, FTP, IRC bouncer and so on. It's quite stable, the biggest problem I have is that I have to use a custom coreutils build because of Xen, otherwise I Syu carefully two to four times in a month.

raja.name · 2009-01-02 20:09:24

phildg wrote:

Remember that these forums, the main site, mailing lists, all the infrastructure for Arch is run on an Arch64 server.
If you carefully read the output of pacman -Syu, and follow the announce list you should rarely have problems, major or numerous related package updates normally sit in testing for a while to ensure things don't break when they are moved to core/extra.
Having said that, however, I personally do not like the idea of a rolling release system for a server, I don't like updating a production system, therefore updates are restricted to security vulnerabilities and bugs fixes that affect me.
All my desktops/laptops run Arch though, and have been 99% trouble free

Do you know how long this archlinux.org website is running on archlinux? I would be eager to know more info about how the archlinux team maintains all the software needed for running this website on the archlinux server. Do they update their entire server system periodically or do they just update only needed software whenever they require? I also would like to know whether they use ABS for building and installing software from source or just use pacman. If they use pacman, I guess they are just using core and extra repositories. Knowledge of administering and maintaining archlinux server will definitely help people to adopt archlinux for servers and eventually help to make archlinux a better server operating system.

I found http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … rver_(SBS) . It would be really helpful if someone who has knowledge and experience to translate and continue that wiki in English.

Archlinux is a general purpose distribution and can be customized and used for many different application domains. If archlinux.org can be hosted reliably on archlinux, I feel comfortable to host my website on archlinux as well

phildg · 2009-01-02 23:16:33

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 34#p389334

I think this is an authoritive enough post on the matter, considering his position: http://www.archlinux.org/developers/#DustyP

jacko · 2009-01-02 23:17:17

georgia_tech_swagger wrote:

sand_man wrote:
So you pacman -S the updates you need. What's the difference to any other distro?
Stability. Even I'm not insane enough to put Arch on a production server. I use Gentoo for that. If a package is screwed up ... I can easily choose from several versions in the main repos to install from. And let's face it ... it's not like Arch has been as stable as bedrock. As major upgrades transpire, things tend to break. While "waiting a day or two" is fine on your desktop, it's usually unacceptable on a server.

last major breakage in arch was xorg, who uses that on a server?

phildg · 2009-01-02 23:44:48

sand_man wrote:

So you pacman -S the updates you need. What's the difference to any other distro?

The difference is I get an email about every security or bug fix made in the main OS, I also get a daily report on any known security vulnerabilities for the applications I have installed allowing me to make updates as and when they're needed. I think I applied 7 or 8 updates throughout 2008, furthermore those updates where made within 2 days of me being informed that an update was available.

Contrast that with Arch. I find myself updating my desktops perhaps fortnightly, any less frequently and I find the updates become tedious. There is no security team, so without registering on the mailing list of every project used, the only way to ensure the system is fully patched is to do a full update.

Even if I did a full update every 2 weeks, there is still the possibility of me running a piece of software with a known vulnerability for 2 weeks, rather than my current target of 2 days.

There is still the issue of updating software unnecessarily. Each update is risk, things may change and break the existing behaviour of your system, my philosophy is updates are only applied if it addresses a security problem, or fixes a bug that affects me. Doing a full update is in conflict with that philosophy.

I'm not attempting to criticise Arch here, apologies if it sounds that way. It is simply the case that Arch's ideas and methodologies are in conflict with my own for server use. The desktops/laptops on the other hand, that's a different ball game, I've been a happy Arch user for years.

netVare · 2009-01-03 10:55:30

phildg wrote:

sand_man wrote:
So you pacman -S the updates you need. What's the difference to any other distro?
The difference is I get an email about every security or bug fix made in the main OS, I also get a daily report on any known security vulnerabilities for the applications I have installed allowing me to make updates as and when they're needed. I think I applied 7 or 8 updates throughout 2008, furthermore those updates where made within 2 days of me being informed that an update was available.
Contrast that with Arch. I find myself updating my desktops perhaps fortnightly, any less frequently and I find the updates become tedious. There is no security team, so without registering on the mailing list of every project used, the only way to ensure the system is fully patched is to do a full update.
Even if I did a full update every 2 weeks, there is still the possibility of me running a piece of software with a known vulnerability for 2 weeks, rather than my current target of 2 days.
There is still the issue of updating software unnecessarily. Each update is risk, things may change and break the existing behaviour of your system, my philosophy is updates are only applied if it addresses a security problem, or fixes a bug that affects me. Doing a full update is in conflict with that philosophy.
I'm not attempting to criticise Arch here, apologies if it sounds that way. It is simply the case that Arch's ideas and methodologies are in conflict with my own for server use. The desktops/laptops on the other hand, that's a different ball game, I've been a happy Arch user for years.

First of all i think that you can grab the mails about every component in your OS and install them manually... pkgbuild is the way out. Also every system will require you to read the notes before the install, so that you will be aware of what you are actually doing. And the last thing... you can always use some virtual machine to compile & test everything and that will be the safiest way that comes to my mind. It takes a lot of time, but then you are on the safe side.

I regret that i don't use arch on the server i'm running right now as it is always easier to work with one system than with several of them. But i have to face that i'll need to turn my server down for a while if i want to switch to the arch which is unacceptable.

phildg · 2009-01-03 19:07:05

netVare wrote:

First of all i think that you can grab the mails about every component in your OS

There is no doubt you can, however registering to a few hundred mailing lists is not my idea of fun. The next step would be to not bother with the repository, and grab sources from the projects' websites.

Reading update and release notes is not the issue here. I may have a exotic setup that may throw up a problem not yet encountered. As you yourself have stated updating and testing everything is very time consuming, and arguably a waste of time, for the most part. By updating only what is necessary you save that time.

A case in point: At 3:05 my system emailed me telling me vim had a security vulbnerability along with this link: http://www.freebsd.org/ports/portaudit/ … 00016.html. At 18:30, after getting home from work I read my email and became aware of the problem, 20 minutes after that vim on my server was updated. Job done.

Now, my desktop was updated yesterday as it happens, so had vim not been installed on my server (thus not being made aware about it) then it would have been at least another 2 weeks before this being addressed. Unless I subscribed to vim's mailing list, but I think we can all agree that subscribing to mailing list's to all upstream providers will quickly become horrible and unmanageable.

Edit: Ha! The vim example is not as good as it first looked, Arch isn't affected because the current version is outside the affected versions. However I have gone from version 7.1.315 to 7.2.69 so I have saved the time and effort of updating to each point release in between

Last edited by phildg (2009-01-03 19:12:02)

raja.name · 2009-01-03 22:41:43

If you are looking for an affordable VPS provider offering Archlinux, I would recommend http://connectswitch.com, where I have my Archlinux based VPS. They run a New Year promotion offering 30% monthly recurring discount at the moment still their stocks last. They are a newer company, and so I would recommend you to try their services for sometime before hosting your production websites.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-12-31 21:52:53

Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#2 2008-12-31 22:01:12

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#3 2008-12-31 22:01:14

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#4 2008-12-31 22:23:26

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#5 2008-12-31 22:27:43

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#6 2009-01-01 01:24:24

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#7 2009-01-01 01:29:11

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#8 2009-01-01 01:43:21

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#9 2009-01-01 01:57:14

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#10 2009-01-01 02:39:40

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#11 2009-01-01 03:22:40

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#12 2009-01-01 03:24:35

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#13 2009-01-01 03:39:08

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#14 2009-01-02 05:52:40

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#15 2009-01-02 15:16:24

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#16 2009-01-02 15:46:26

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#17 2009-01-02 16:59:20

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#18 2009-01-02 17:58:49

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#19 2009-01-02 20:09:24

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#20 2009-01-02 23:16:33

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#21 2009-01-02 23:17:17

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#22 2009-01-02 23:44:48

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#23 2009-01-03 10:55:30

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#24 2009-01-03 19:07:05

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

#25 2009-01-03 22:41:43

Re: Archlinux as the Server Operating System

Board footer