Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

Rukiri · 2012-04-30 19:22:54

I use Arch as my everyday OS but I've been developing a few sites with Django and Ruby on rails and wondering what OS would be best suited for a server environment.

I'm building a custom dedicated box as well I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars per month for dedicated hosting in which if you know what you're doing you're better off on your own + it's free once you have your box.
I've used Gentoo, Arch, and SUSE(OpenSUSE) as OSs and Suse seems very stable as SLES is generally OpenSUSE with it's server tools but updates aren't as quick which is ideal for a server environment.

With Gentoo or Arch you have to constantly update every month or every week, with gentoo I don't want to deal with mainly because of it's compile times which offer..really nothing over arch in terms of performance and even stability at this point which begs the question. Is source compiling even worth it? Even compiling from source with Arch is 10X quicker then gentoo.

For Servers though I would consider Arch but the constant updating freaks me out as an IT, Gentoo makes me want to jump off the ledge, Suse, CentOS, Oracle Linux, or even RedHat have less frequent updates and are made for the server and oh forgot about CloudLinux(cheap compared to suse or redhat per year. 14/mo 168/yr.) I've heard good things about Cloud Linux as well.

For a server is Arch a good option?

astenorh · 2012-04-30 20:28:19

Can't give you a good answer but here are a few facts that might help you with your decision:
- Arch offers a LTS kernel so you can "freeze" the kernel and reboot less often.
- A server will use less applications than a desktop setup and hence you will get less updates on average.

Rukiri · 2012-04-30 21:00:41

I thought arch updated the kernel whenever there was an update the same for any package.

visi[]n · 2012-04-30 21:56:00

I also use Arch for my personal OS. But recently I played with a FreeBSD VPS and really enjoyed running it for my web servers. I was not as big of a fan running it for a personal machine because compiling all of the packages of a desktop os just takes to long in my opinion but it worked great for a server where you only need select relatively small packages. It seemed really secure and I found I liked using the port system and was able to get all of the up to date packages I wanted.

beta990 · 2012-04-30 21:56:34

Ubuntu server 12.04 LTS. Kernel freeze, ppa's if needed, landscape, etc.

I would not use Arch, simple because a server always need to work fine, without any probs due new packages.

Last edited by beta990 (2012-04-30 21:57:22)

Trilby · 2012-04-30 22:03:26

The rolling release nature of arch should not be the relevant point. Nothing will make you run pacman -Syu on your server. If you just get it set up and never update you won't have any problems due to new packages and you'll still be more up-to-date than most scheduled release distros for quite a while.

Whether arch is "stable" enough in another question. I've heard people claim it isn't, though I don't quite get that part.

Rukiri · 2012-04-30 22:20:22

Trilby wrote:

The rolling release nature of arch should not be the relevant point. Nothing will make you run pacman -Syu on your server. If you just get it set up and never update you won't have any problems due to new packages and you'll still be more up-to-date than most scheduled release distros for quite a while.
Whether arch is "stable" enough in another question. I've heard people claim it isn't, though I don't quite get that part.

With a VPS I'd just install your X name server, whatever your using(php, ruby, javascript, python, perl, coldfusion, etc) and only update when they've been tested stable. Sometimes source releases are released first(stable or unstable) you could Use Arch's ABS but I find Portage best for source compiling.

I have a Arch/Gentoo, arch as it's pretty much the best distro, portage for when I want to compile from source (web servers, ruby, python, php, frameworks) that's the only thing I'd compile from source. And Pacman for everything else.

rwd · 2012-05-08 18:32:13

If it is a server that other people rely on Arch would not be the best choice. Because if you don't update you will get unpatched vulnerabilities, and if update you will get occasional breakage that comes with a rolling release. I'd say go with debian/centos/freebsd instead. But the cost of hosting includes backups, managing OS updates ,hardware maintenance, (physical) security and whatnot. Unless you are going to do that yourself and your time is cheaper you are not saving money.

Last edited by rwd (2012-05-08 18:47:43)

roentgen · 2012-05-08 19:42:40

It depends also what you intend to do on it.
For example it took me 2 days to figure out what's needed to compile zoneminder on a Ubuntu server (ffmpeg nightmare) while I did the same task in half an hour with Arch. Everything was there: the right libs, the right sources...

twelveeighty · 2012-05-10 02:38:02

I use Arch on my business laptop without a hitch; as long as I keep an eye on kernel updates and posts on the forums (there's been some instability regarding wireless drivers in the last couple of months).

For all our servers in the corporation, we use openSUSE. Mostly, since we've built internal knowledge and expertise with it, but also since you can still run regular updates for security but with less structural changes (kernel, PHP, etc.) that Arch tends to roll out much quicker.

PReP · 2012-05-10 23:26:24

My server runs Arch and has for a bit of time without much trouble atleast.

As with most things arch, keeping up with the news-list (or the mailing lists if even) can help ease any paranoia.
And i have not seen much (if any) server breaking updates on my end thus far - even if peoples use-cases differs.

Last edited by PReP (2012-05-10 23:26:53)

DrZaius · 2012-05-15 19:55:44

Rukiri wrote:

I've used Gentoo, Arch, and SUSE(OpenSUSE) as OSs and Suse seems very stable as SLES is generally OpenSUSE with it's server tools but updates aren't as quick which is ideal for a server environment.

Familiarity is always a good ally, but of course they are all Linux. I've used RHEL, CentOS, and Debian for production web servers. They all got the job done just fine, although I often wished some aspects were more Arch like at times. I've also used Arch for some in-house servers. Those are my favorites to work with. I made sure to keep up with security updates and for example on the Debian server subscribed to the debian-security-announce mailing list. Of course it depends on what you're doing. If it's for personal sites or a hobby feel free to be adventurous. If you're dealing with clients then it's another story.

Rukiri wrote:

...with gentoo I don't want to deal with mainly because of it's compile times which offer..really nothing over arch in terms of performance and even stability at this point which begs the question. Is source compiling even worth it?

I think you answered your own question here.

sitquietly · 2012-05-15 22:09:56

Rukiri wrote:

I use Arch as my everyday OS but I've been developing a few sites with Django and Ruby on rails and wondering what OS would be best suited for a server environment.
I'm building a custom dedicated box.....I've used Gentoo, Arch, and SUSE(OpenSUSE).....
For Servers though I would consider Arch but the constant updating freaks me out as an IT, Gentoo makes me want to jump off the ledge, Suse, CentOS, Oracle Linux, or even RedHat have less frequent updates and are made for the server .....
For a server is Arch a good option?

My experience with Arch suggests that it would be a poor choice for a server; it'll break. Sure, if you're competent you'll fix it. But it WILL break.

If you are comfortable with Arch I would consider CRUX. It is pretty darn sweet. Simpler. Much simpler. Custom built no-modules kernel. Source-based ports system, prt-get is nice (when you do have to update some software doing it from source will allow you to keep a stable core, i.e. you "backport" new versions). pkg-get could serve binaries to your server from your build machine.

Consider this minecraft server done with CRUX, http://minecraft.codeemo.com/index.html. There's a CRUX live CD http://cruxex.exton.net/. I know that Judd Vinet had wanted Arch to be useful as a server but even he questioned whether his team would be able to invent a way to spin off a stable release. Well, there is no stable release and Arch has become quite baroque compared to those early days. CRUX would be the pure Arch of yesteryear that can make an awesome server.

fukawi2 · 2012-05-15 23:14:10

Rukiri wrote:

For Servers though I would consider Arch but the constant updating freaks me out as an IT, Gentoo makes me want to jump off the ledge, Suse, CentOS, Oracle Linux, or even RedHat have less frequent updates and are made for the server

I used to use Arch for a couple of VPS servers I have (1 web server, 1 mail server and 1 database server). I went through a period of time where I fell behind on updates and now they're just in a big mess. I'm in the middle of migrating them to a new setup with CentOS.
I would not recommend Arch in a business environment for production use for 2 reasons:
1) Maintenance overhead to perform and manage updates.
2) Other you work with (or replace you in future) are unlikely to be familiar with Arch compared to CentOS (or other "mainstream" distro)

Rukiri wrote:

For a server is Arch a good option?

If it it is for personal use, and you can tolerate more downtime that you get with other distros (reboots and possibly issues during updates).

Don't forget to keep on top of AUR and ABS packages; that was something that bit me when the Arch toolchain got updated... A lot of things broke because I forgot to rebuild all my AUR and ABS packages.

Arch Linux

#1 2012-04-30 19:22:54

Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#2 2012-04-30 20:28:19

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#3 2012-04-30 21:00:41

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#4 2012-04-30 21:56:00

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#5 2012-04-30 21:56:34

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#6 2012-04-30 22:03:26

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#7 2012-04-30 22:20:22

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#8 2012-05-08 18:32:13

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#9 2012-05-08 19:42:40

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#10 2012-05-10 02:38:02

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#11 2012-05-10 23:26:24

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#12 2012-05-15 19:55:44

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#13 2012-05-15 22:09:56

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

#14 2012-05-15 23:14:10

Re: Arch or CloudLinux, RHEL, SLES, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Debian, Gentoo

Board footer