Arch a good server distribution?

ftornell · 2009-05-14 23:02:45

Got a few people at my work that always have been running Debian as their server OS.
How is Arch compared to that in a stability point of view?

I know it's almost entirely up to the applications and services that's running on the server but if we leave that aside for now.

Arch is a rolling release so that must be a huge advantage?

lucke · 2009-05-14 23:15:29

Rolling release is both an advantage and disadvantage. It depends what one wants on a server - most would probably prefer a thoroughly tested set of packages. On the other hand, most of the breakage in Arch comes from desktop stuff.

i'm running Arch on my home server/router and wouldn't change it for anything else.

Xyne · 2009-05-14 23:25:00

I don't run a server (read: publicly accessible server that's normally up) but the rolling-release model should be good for getting security updates quickly so you should be less susceptible to known security holes. The downside is that updates can introduce new, unexpected bugs and break a system. The downtime required to fix it may be unacceptable in many scenarios. I would keep avoid cleaning the package cache most of the time to be sure that I have older, working versions of packages for such scenarios.

You really can't discuss this though without considering the actual applications and services that you're running. They determine the relative rate of updates, what needs to play nicely together, etc. I would expect that some updates are more likely to be problematic than others.

haxit · 2009-05-14 23:53:12

If you want a secure, stable, hard-as-rock server, get Arch. Like they said there are problems with rolling release, but if you keep a cache, it should be alright. Also, if you don't mind security holes, you can keep the old software

arkay · 2009-05-15 00:08:35

I've been running Arch as a server (at home) for over a year now. It's perfect for it in my opinion but use in a corporate environment is a different matter. Whether to update or not is entirely up to you. Sure it's a rolling release but if you have everything perfect and don't need a new feature provided by an update simply don't update.

The only gotcha is that sooner or later it will become harder too update the longer you leave it. I tend to do mine about every 6 months but I image copy my primary partition to a backup and then upgrade the backup until I'm happy with it. Test it, and then swap my grub menu to boot the upgraded version as default.

I've found arch to be easy to work with, efficient, capable of anything and on the whole just fantastic, with options for latest packages all the time if you desire.

Don't think about it. Just do it!

Cheers,

Arkay.

Last edited by arkay (2009-05-17 11:55:08)

ataraxia · 2009-05-15 00:18:29

For a server that belongs to you and for which you have no responsibilities to other people, yes, absolutely.

For an "enterprise" work server, no, absolutely not. (I think it's the only thing Arch isn't excellent at.) Those kinds of servers have their requirements given to you by someone else. Most such customers don't want anything to change on them, ever. You might not be allowed to even install security patches more than twice a year or so, let alone actual new software versions. Waiting that long between -Syu runs is likely to leave you with a big mess at least half of the times.

djgera · 2009-05-15 00:35:56

I think everything depends on how you are a fan of security. Think a lot of distributions, patch any kind of security bug even if it is almost impossible to exploit. While these bugs in uptream are not fixed.

Arch Linux have as principle "no patch software in most cases" so, if the security bug don't appear in uptream..., everything will depend on who maintains the package if consider to patch or not. [#1]

I think that using Arch Linux, requires greater commitment and responsibility of the user compared to other distros, where they do everything for you.

[#1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rep … or_Arch.3F

Remember that this is *my personal opinion*. I do not have any server, and I am not a fan of security

Good Luck!

jwcxz · 2009-05-15 01:44:54

My obsession with constantly syuing proves that I shouldn't be using Arch as a server distro. However, the servers I run Arch on are geared toward very local projects and an update and perhaps a reboot at 5 in the morning my time won't cause issues.

ftornell · 2009-05-15 06:11:03

Thx for the input guys.

blueprint · 2009-05-15 15:49:33

Like people have said the main problem is controlling the version of packages. Corporate environments will have test, dev and prod servers all at the same levels. If you were to run Arch as a server you probably want your own local pacman repo and keep it offline while only syncing it based on your patching cycle.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-14 23:02:45

Arch a good server distribution?

#2 2009-05-14 23:15:29

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

#3 2009-05-14 23:25:00

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

#4 2009-05-14 23:53:12

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

#5 2009-05-15 00:08:35

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

#6 2009-05-15 00:18:29

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

#7 2009-05-15 00:35:56

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

#8 2009-05-15 01:44:54

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

#9 2009-05-15 06:11:03

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

#10 2009-05-15 15:49:33

Re: Arch a good server distribution?

Board footer