[SOLVED] Arch as a server

dcbdbis · 2013-12-21 05:00:58

Have a client that has been on CentOS for 2 years, just updated to CentOS 6.5.

I have my personal workstation on Arch (development and CAD/CAM), and have since 2004 (release 0.7 is where I started). I used Arch on my workstations at work without issues before I became disabled.

The last 3-4 years have seen Arch become wonderfully stable. The devs/maintainers have really done an outstanding job. The only time my system has gone down is when I've had a hardware failure, or I've done something truly Neandertalic.

I know Arch almost inside and out. I am very, very comfortable administering it as a server. I also know that the wiki's basically recommend extreme caution when deploying Arch as a server or in any mission critical application. I suspect because some people would update it so regularly, as to expose the installations to glitches with the occasional package that may be problematic. I am not that way.

My experience has been that in the last 3-4 years, this extreme caution is no longer needed (IMHO). Some common sense, and careful usage of pacman's ability to ignore packages....and I'm just lost as why it shouldn't be deployed as a server.

Without 5 pages of documented glitches with CentOS, suffice to say that I am tired of CentOS embarrassing me. I'm tired of fighting with it. It's sole job is to host one lone VM, Allow OpenVPN connectivity so that my users can access their desktops when remote. A pretty low set of requirements for a server.

I just allowed CentOS to update itself to 6.5.......and it didn't come back cleanly. Something so basic as the login terminal (local terminal) is dead. Why? Because CentOS's update procedure installed the nvidia driver alongside the nouveau driver, and broke X. I didn't belive it until lspci -v|less showed that both were in use on the Video card!!!! I have never seen that one before!!! This was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak (lost my trust in Cent). I have the clients permission to wipe this server (we have a lot of backups), and put Arch on it if that is my best judgement.

For the record....I have done a lot of testing with Cent since the glitches. Even in my local VM, my clients glitches are reproducible. And to make it worse, I see my issues on the formal bug reports on the CentOS site. The problem follows Cent, not the hardware. My experience is that about every other update I do with this Cent installation, brings with it issues, or breaks other stuff that was previously working. I just cannot, and will not accept that behavior for an OS that markets itself as a server os.

I am asking others who may have already done this for their client(s)......to let me know of any pitfalls (if any) to watch out for..........

I just am having a hard time jusitfying, why Arch shouldn't be used in mission critical applications.......I mean some conservative, scheduled, and planned updates, and any issues I foresee would be eliminated.

I ask for the communities feedback in Arch as a server to make sure I haven't forgotten about anything, or have missed anything.

I really want to do my due diligence up front. Moving the server to Arch will require a lot of my time to do.

I also ask for experiences from others who have already done what I am about to do (deploy Arch as a server)

Feedback will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Dave

Last edited by dcbdbis (2013-12-21 18:46:01)

Allan · 2013-12-21 05:34:54

dcbdbis wrote:

Have a client

That is where I stopped thinking running Arch could possibly be a good idea.

stryder · 2013-12-21 08:21:56

The thing about arch is that it will go where the devs want it to go. They do not develop it for a specific environment. Sure there are ways to cling to older more predictable programs but in arch there is no turning back. So while you can be confident of your past experience, there is no assurance of the future. Furthermore you are considering a situation where you are the admin but that may change. I think debian stable is better alternative as their goal is stability.

dcbdbis · 2013-12-21 16:04:49

Thank you all for the input....I appreciate the feedback. I'll go with Debian.

demian · 2013-12-21 17:13:58

boy, that de-escalated quickly.

dcbdbis · 2013-12-21 17:47:24

Well Demian,

I received a categorical thumbs down from people more experienced than me with Arch, including one developer. And the reason presented is one I hadn't thought of: Arch is a moving target. In my experience, that is indeed true.

And I didnt post to troll. I really wanted to know if there was someting I wasn't thinking about....and sure enough there was.

I'm comfy with Debian, although I don't like their ultra-conservative approach to the point that the distro and it's software packages are usually from the Jurassic period. I may not go with Debian for this very reason alone.

I need software that is more current than Debian, as my customers use it. However, I have been put on notice that Arch can change fundamentally at any time, and unpredictably (from a user's standpoint), and so I need to ask myself: "Do I really want that model on my client's server just so I am in my comfort zone?".....Well, no!

And I just may steer my customer to just buy RHEL.

I'll put Debian in a VM here on my local machine, and check out the software revs my customer uses. If it's too old....then I'll start looking at another distro.

And I am certainly not beyond putting FreeBSD on their server.....Even though it is significantly more bristly to admin than linux.

So I am appreciative that the responders are really trying to protect my backsides!

Sincerly and respectfully,

Dave

Last edited by dcbdbis (2013-12-21 17:47:43)

aaditya · 2013-12-21 18:50:32

There's Slackware.
And on top of it (if you want) MLED.

dcbdbis · 2013-12-21 19:03:27

Thank you for the suggestion of Slackware/MLED.

I have some experience with Slackware (an audition or two on VirtualBox). And no exposure to MLED.

The maintenance of Slackware can be quite painful from my few experiences, and fraught with danger (dependency update hell). It's not for the uninitiated, which I am certainly uninitated.

I'm looking at Debian vs FreeBSD at the moment. Both are systems I've used before, and FreeBSD now has a utility "freebsd-update" with a bunch of switches, to ease the update process.

I'll report back which I have decided on and why, for others to read....after the auditioning process is done.

I am still very open for suggestions, and I will be appreciative for those suggestions.

It's just that I have little experience in Slackware, and the times I have used it in VM's...was...well....painful. It's always felt like a porcupine when I've used it before.

Thank you again for the suggestion,

Sincerely and respectfully,

Dave

jasonwryan · 2013-12-21 20:08:33

I think Debian is the way to go. They are about to put in place a regular release schedule (the last remaining reason to consider Ubuntu server over Debian) and their software is only old because you are used to Arch; compared to RHEL, they are cutting edge!

Arch Linux

#1 2013-12-21 05:00:58

[SOLVED] Arch as a server

#2 2013-12-21 05:34:54

Re: [SOLVED] Arch as a server

#3 2013-12-21 08:21:56

Re: [SOLVED] Arch as a server

#4 2013-12-21 16:04:49

Re: [SOLVED] Arch as a server

#5 2013-12-21 17:13:58

Re: [SOLVED] Arch as a server

#6 2013-12-21 17:47:24

Re: [SOLVED] Arch as a server

#7 2013-12-21 18:50:32

Re: [SOLVED] Arch as a server

#8 2013-12-21 19:03:27

Re: [SOLVED] Arch as a server

#9 2013-12-21 20:08:33

Re: [SOLVED] Arch as a server

Board footer