You are not logged in.

#1 2019-05-03 19:44:48

4internetanonymity
Member
Registered: 2009-07-09
Posts: 29

ArchLinux on Linode vs EC2 vs DigitalOcean, etc

I'm trying to compare the reliability of these platforms for long term Arch Linux image building and updating. Have any of you used more than one of these platforms with Arch Linux? These days on DigitalOcean it seems you have to run a "convert Debian to Arch" script, which seems lame.

DigitalOcean used to have ArchLinux as an option, but supposedly they removed it due to it being hard to support? I don't understand this when a mere individual can supposedly make a custom image that would work long-term on DigitalOcean.

I found this great resources that seems to generate reliable Arch AMIs for EC2: https://www.uplinklabs.net/projects/arch-linux-on-ec2/

And of course on Linode, we can build our own images too... But out of the options, AMIs seem to be the most reliably built for Arch Linux, but that perception is not easy to verify, however. And EC2 is much more expensive than the rest, which is why I'm looking into this in the first place.

P.S. Admins: Feel free to move this thread; I was unsure which forum matched it best.

Offline

#2 2019-05-07 09:27:01

jamespharvey20
Member
Registered: 2015-06-09
Posts: 128

Re: ArchLinux on Linode vs EC2 vs DigitalOcean, etc

I'm happy with Vultr.  They supply an Arch ISO, and if it's not the current one, their site lets you upload your own ISO.  Then you just use a virtual console to access the ISO, and install like normal.

Offline

#3 2019-05-09 09:16:51

edgy
Banned
Registered: 2019-05-05
Posts: 22

Re: ArchLinux on Linode vs EC2 vs DigitalOcean, etc

Never used Arch Linux on server, myself. Been running Debian on my DO server and are okay with it. With the number of things already setup on the server, it doesn't make sense to try poking into Arch Linux.

Claiming that Arch Linux is hard to support is a bit of a lame excuse. They could have easily made a custom image that would work long-term on DO, yes. Even more lame is when you have to run a "convert to Arch Linux" script. That sounds ultra lame.

Having noticed that bleeding edge packages are frowned upon on servers from the possibility of them being buggy, it is more probable that DO are just not bothered putting effort into having Arch Linux images.

Offline

#4 2019-05-17 02:49:02

4internetanonymity
Member
Registered: 2009-07-09
Posts: 29

Re: ArchLinux on Linode vs EC2 vs DigitalOcean, etc

edgy wrote:

Claiming that Arch Linux is hard to support is a bit of a lame excuse. They could have easily made a custom image that would work long-term on DO, yes. Even more lame is when you have to run a "convert to Arch Linux" script. That sounds ultra lame.

Agreed - it's strange.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB