Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

Carlwill · 2013-04-29 20:58:01

I was curious if anyone here uses / recommends Arch Linux for dedicated server use? It seems 'most' people here are Linux enthusiast and run this as their distribution of choice. Has anyone seen or have any comments about loading this on a server or VM and using it reliably as a server like one would say Debian Linux or Slackware Linux? I understand Arch is a rolling release distribution and it's very bleeding edge which kind of impacts how reliable something can be however I've never had Arch Linux crash or do anything dumb however I've not used it massively. Would like to see how others view this topic and such.

Also for my own interests, if you don't use Arch Linux for a server based role, what do you prefer instead?

Last edited by Carlwill (2013-04-29 21:02:00)

jasonwryan · 2013-04-29 21:00:20

You frequently see comments here about people using Arch for servers (virtual and real).

I'm not interested in tinkering with mine, so I run debian on it

# edit: http://www.archserver.org/

Carlwill · 2013-04-29 21:04:47

jasonwryan wrote:

# edit: http://www.archserver.org/

ArchServer is an unofficial community project. It is still in development. There is currently no stable release suitable for production usage yet.

This turned me away back in 2008. Made it sound kind of whatever to me and it doesn't see to have made a lot of progress since 2008 when I first read that.

lucke · 2013-04-29 21:07:10

I've been using Arch as my home server/router for ages (routing/firewall, nfsd, sshd, cupsd, irc sessions, etc.).

fukawi2 · 2013-04-29 22:53:48

Carlwill wrote:

jasonwryan wrote:
# edit: http://www.archserver.org/
ArchServer is an unofficial community project. It is still in development. There is currently no stable release suitable for production usage yet.
This turned me away back in 2008. Made it sound kind of whatever to me and it doesn't see to have made a lot of progress since 2008 when I first read that.

I handed the project over to someone around 12 months after I started it. Unfortunately you're correct, it hasn't gone any further since then

hawaiicharles · 2013-04-30 00:18:43

We have one Linux server at my work place running Arch. We outsource our payroll to another company, and every night that company sends us a set up text files via SFTP. There's a CIFS share mounted onto the user's home directory, so when we receive the files, they end up in that CIFS share. So in reality, the "server" is nothing but a base installation of Arch with 2 users (one for me and one for the outside company) and smbclient installed. But it works great for what it does. I actually had to sort of twist my supervisor's arm to let me use Linux for this project. He wanted a Windows solution, but I convinced him that Linux would be better.

jasonwryan · 2013-04-30 00:49:15

Probably time for this: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 44#p612344

litemotiv · 2013-04-30 08:49:18

I run Arch on an office server but i don't really recommend it, dealing with constant updates can be quite tiring in an environment where you really just want stability and a low maintenance burden. In a technical sense it runs well though, this box serves as an issue tracker (Ruby/Redmine) and automated backup server for 3 other servers (rsnapshot), it hasn't had any real breakage in the ~3 years it's been in use.

Last edited by litemotiv (2013-04-30 08:52:30)

fsckd · 2013-04-30 14:28:15

I know a number of people who chose Arch for personal servers. Arch Women use Arch Linux on their server. It's fine as long as one can put in the time to maintain it.

SidK · 2013-04-30 14:34:04

I run a couple of web servers, an email server and some other misc stuff on Archlinux. Sure there's more maintenance than with other distros, but for these it projects it is worth it, at least in my opinion. At work we (rightly) don't use it, sticking to more mainstream server distros.

WorMzy · 2013-04-30 14:57:44

My home machine doubles as a server web/mpd server, I'd never use Arch on a mission-critical server though.

Morrad · 2013-04-30 20:19:33

Again, not a "production" server, but I run an Arch server hosting my websites, primary mail server, and code repositories.

I've run Debian to do the same in the past, and in comparison Arch does require a bit more attention to what is being updated (twice in the past year I've had track down the cause of some service breaking during an update). As a hobbyist user, I can tolerate poking around for a few days to find the root of a problem, and the more ad hoc tinkering element is, at least for me, a "feature" of Arch.

If you want to use Arch to host something you care more about, it may be useful to have some kind of test setup so you can break and fix things in a more private fashion.

fukawi2 · 2013-04-30 23:13:50

fsckd wrote:

It's fine as long as one can put in the time to maintain it.

This.

nomorewindows · 2013-05-01 15:41:20

WorMzy wrote:

My home machine doubles as a server web/mpd server, I'd never use Arch on a mission-critical server though.

I'm not sure that most people would use most of what's out there for mission critical stuff.

scar · 2013-05-02 08:23:05

I have a home server and I'm running an XBMC (with web access)/ WebServer/ Samba / Monitorix combo on it.
My router runs arch too. (Shorewall, Fail2Ban, bridged OpenVPN, SSH, Iperf server, Bind, Dhcp daemon, Dyndns, and Monitorix)

Both stable.
I've only had two major problems with the router, because of some kernel bugs always fixed in a month or so by the kernel devs,
but downgrading the kernel always solved my problems and caused me a couple of hours of time loss.

It is always fun to have someithing like this AT HOME. You learn a lot, believe me.

BTW I could hardly imagine them as prod servers/routers. Arch is rolling release, so if anything changes, it can easily break things.
I would use Debian for such things.

Last edited by scar (2013-05-03 12:32:18)

x33a · 2013-05-02 10:37:45

With my relatively minimal arch installation for the desktop, I usually get about 300 MB of updates per week.

In comparison my debian server doesn't get so many updates even in a month, and as a result almost no maintenance.. Agreed it has a lot less packages installed than arch, but I am sure if I used arch in its place, it would drive me nuts.

In my opinion arch is perfect for a desktop, but not so much for a server (at least a remote server).

gm112 · 2013-05-03 08:46:45

https://wiiking2.com/forums <-- I run this on an Arch-based Linode with Lighttpd for static content, PHP-FPM/FastCGI for dynamic and its honestly not that bad to maintain.

The main trick is to stay current with the packages and always be careful with updating. I normally keep my config stored on a local backup just so if something does go wrong, I can always get things running again. It took just as long as it would normally take me to do a Debian/Ubuntu setup in all honesty, if not faster.

My advice to you is to install only what you need if you're going to install Arch on a production server. The less packages you have to worry about, the less maintaining you may or may not have to do, if any at all. We're lucky enough to have the announcements page bring up the big changes so that's something to consider.

Honestly I would only recommend using Arch as a server if you know that the web-based software that you're using really doesn't mix well with frozen versions or if you're a developer and working on your own stuff. (Which I currently am) But when they say that it is as stable as you make it, the truth cannot be any more clearer than that.

madr · 2013-05-03 14:18:17

According to the Wiki archlinux.org runs on Arch (not a big surprise perhaps).

daf666 · 2013-05-03 14:28:38

I ran Arch as servers or testing hosts several times, they usualy break apart after several months. No one has the extra time to maintain stuff, and Arch is constantly changing and updating... not good when needing reliability and stability... I'm sticking with Debian/Ubuntu Server at the work place the same way I am sticking with Arch at the Home place

fsckd · 2013-05-04 01:08:59

These people use Arch on their server.

GI Jack · 2013-05-08 09:51:33

depends on what the server is used for.

Not in production in an institution, like a government or a corporation.

but for a home server its fine. Or any use where you can upgrade to the latest version and not break stuff.

Arch is rolling release, but it uses stable software in the main repos, so its very stable.

Multimoon · 2013-05-10 13:26:54

I run 3 game servers and a website on a Arch box. I spend ~30 minutes every sunday preforming updates, and I wrote timed bash scripts for everything else. I have run it for about a year now, the biggest problem I ever had was fault of my own when I messed up a custom .service file for starting stuff.

sjg · 2013-05-12 18:10:45

I run 2 Arch servers - one is at home, the other is a remote VPS that hosts a moderately successful website. Both have been up for over 18 months with only about half an hour spent maintaining them every fortnight or so.

I was a bit apprehensive (and still wouldn't recommend it for anything truly "mission critical"), but I have been impressed with how well it works for my purposes. Arch is the distro I know best and am most comfortable with, and for this reason I trust my current setup better than the Centos box I had before.

thisllub · 2013-05-12 22:19:56

Why would you choose Arch over RedHat, SUSE or Ubuntu?
Those distros all require a long period of turning off services after install.
For something like a VM host using KVM, Arch is easier to setup, easier to lock down and easier to test.

There are no right or wrong answers only degrees of fitness for purpose.
The less you do with a server the more suited it will be to Arch.
If you run a lot of services you are more likely to be better off with a distro configured to operate that way.

nixpunk · 2013-05-13 03:37:57

I've been using Arch on my home servers for many years, running SSHD, MPD, VSFTPD, and NFS daemons. I can't complain.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-04-29 20:58:01

Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#2 2013-04-29 21:00:20

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#3 2013-04-29 21:04:47

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#4 2013-04-29 21:07:10

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#5 2013-04-29 22:53:48

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#6 2013-04-30 00:18:43

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#7 2013-04-30 00:49:15

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#8 2013-04-30 08:49:18

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#9 2013-04-30 14:28:15

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#10 2013-04-30 14:34:04

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#11 2013-04-30 14:57:44

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#12 2013-04-30 20:19:33

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#13 2013-04-30 23:13:50

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#14 2013-05-01 15:41:20

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#15 2013-05-02 08:23:05

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#16 2013-05-02 10:37:45

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#17 2013-05-03 08:46:45

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#18 2013-05-03 14:18:17

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#19 2013-05-03 14:28:38

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#20 2013-05-04 01:08:59

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#21 2013-05-08 09:51:33

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#22 2013-05-10 13:26:54

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#23 2013-05-12 18:10:45

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#24 2013-05-12 22:19:56

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

#25 2013-05-13 03:37:57

Re: Does Anyone Run Arch For Server Use?

Board footer