Arch and infrequent updates

kikinovak · 2015-01-26 13:15:51

Hi,

I'm running a small IT business (http://www.microlinux.fr) based essentially on GNU/Linux and free software. Currently nearly all my server and desktop solutions are based on Slackware, but I do my best to keep an open mind and try other things out. Over the years, I had the odd desktop running Arch, though it's been a few years I haven't given it a spin (mostly because I'm perfectly comfortable with Slackware).

I've read the articles in the Arch wiki about keeping Arch stable, and the Comprehensive Server Guide. I'm thinking about giving Arch a spin on some machines here, but the problem is, updates can be very erratic. I wonder if it's (theoretically) possible to keep an existing Arch desktop or server running if you can only perform updates, say, every three or four months. I'm not a lamer for RTFM, and I know reading the news is vital before upgrading.

I wonder if some of you have a bit of experience with this sort of situation.

Cheers,

Niki

Awebb · 2015-01-26 13:26:56

Are you sure you want to run a server with no security patches for more than a week straight?

I have recently updated a six months old Arch VM without any major hickups. It certainly can be done, but there is no way to tell, if there are two consequent updates in two months, changing two core elements of the system, making it impossible to update from one old state to another without a step in between. If you must, though, you might want to have one machine that updates all the packages all the time and creates snapshots of its pacman cache as a repository, maybe on a monthly basis, so if an update gives you trouble, you can...

Wait... small IT business in South France. That's where the weather is nice? What do you pay the hour?

ANOKNUSA · 2015-01-26 15:15:57

It's possible to do this, but strongly discouraged. There's an odd disconnect I see when people ask how long they can go without updating their Arch setup: The potential problems that keep you from updating now are the same ones you'll face if you update a year from now. Arch is a rolling-release distro; if sudden change and/or the possibility of newly introduced bugs puts you off, well, there's no way to avoid it while using Arch. That's just how it is. The instant your update finishes, you're looking at the latest GNU/Linux software packages available, no matter how (in)frequently you update. You may be able to skip over something potentially troubling now by not updating, but as soon as you do update you could be installing buggy software onto your system. Again, that's just how it is with Arch. Partial upgrades are not supported----if you choose to upgrade most of the system regularly while holding certain packages back manually, it's on you if/when something breaks. Folks here aren't very receptive of people who wait forever to update, break something, and then expect the community to play tech support just because they couldn't be bothered.

In short, Arch is considered a general-purpose OS, but it's main target really is individual desktop/laptop users. Some people run their personal servers on Arch without any problems at all (I did it for a couple years). Word has it that some businesses do indeed run Arch on their servers. The common wisdom, however, is that Arch is only for those willing to take on the extra time, effort and responsibility to maintain it. Just installing it and letting it run for a long time without hands-on maintenance such as updates is bound to cause problems.

bstaletic · 2015-01-26 16:36:44

In my opinion you could delay the update for some time, but as soon as there's a news item concerning your usage of arch you should update. Using Arch this way can consume even more time then using it as intended, as you need to check new frequently while not knowing when will such news item show up.

kikinovak · 2015-01-28 08:07:51

Thanks very much for your answers.

@Awebb: yes, we have an average of 300+ sunny days here in South France. Which means I can go climbing even in the winter.

Of course my dedicated public servers are updated daily, and Slackware does a pretty good job for security patches. But I have installed some networks in schools, public libraries or SMB's where I only perform updates on site, about once every three months, as a batch. Again, if their servers act as a gateway to the internet and have some public access, I also update them daily. On the other hand, if I have two dozen desktop clients behind them, I usually batch update them.

Maybe in the next life, there will be some sort of stable release of Arch, with one release every two years, and maintained for five years. (This would be my perfect enterprise class distro)

Cheers,

Niki

Spider.007 · 2015-01-28 08:42:25

If you don't update your machines more often then every 3 months; how would Arch be better or worse then Slackware? I have a couple of machines that I update roughly monthly; and I've never had any issues. Just make sure your setup is secured as described in various places

kikinovak · 2015-01-28 13:32:07

Spider.007 wrote:

If you don't update your machines more often then every 3 months; how would Arch be better or worse then Slackware?

Because Arch is a rolling release (tsunami of updates after 3 months) and Slackware stable is not.

bowshock · 2015-02-17 05:53:51

Perhaps Manjaro, which is derived from Arch, would be more suitable for what you're aiming for from stability point of view.

jasonwryan · 2015-02-17 06:22:25

bowshock wrote:

Perhaps Manjaro, which is derived from Arch, would be more suitable for what you're aiming for from stability point of view.

Manjaro. Stable? Based on what (other than their spin)?

clfarron4 · 2015-02-17 20:41:28

bowshock wrote:

Perhaps Manjaro, which is derived from Arch, would be more suitable for what you're aiming for from stability point of view.

If you take the viewpoint that less frequent updates stability, then yes, you're looking at a possibility here. However, if issues occur when an update happens, you'll have to wait for the developers to update the repositories and hope things are fixed.

~~Also, some machines hate the hell out of the BFS scheduler, which is the default CPU scheduler of Manjaro.~~

I'll stop there, before this comment is considered a rant.

Honestly, if you're not going to update the system frequently, I would recommend one of the *buntu family, because of the LTS thing and the security updates.

EDIT: My apologies for mis-firing on BFS/BFQ. I do often mix the two up, despite the fact that I maintain packages which ship with both.

Last edited by clfarron4 (2015-02-18 11:02:03)

Korrode · 2015-02-18 00:54:16

jasonwryan wrote:

bowshock wrote:
Perhaps Manjaro, which is derived from Arch, would be more suitable for what you're aiming for from stability point of view.
Manjaro. Stable? Based on what (other than their spin)?

A new package comes to Arch Testing. Users of Arch's Testing branch find no problems so it goes to Arch Stable. If it turns out there are use cases that were not covered by any Arch Testing users, Arch Stable users are hit with those problems. These forums and the Arch bugtracker show plenty of examples of this. Shortly the problems are fixed and pushed to Arch Stable. The original problematic package(s) don't ever make it to Manjaro Stable, because they were caught at the Arch Stable / Manjaro Unstable stage.

This is a valid argument for Manjaro (Stable) being 'more stable' than Arch (Stable). It may not be very 'nice' that Manjaro Stable's users effectively use Arch Stable's users as testers, but it is what it is.

EDIT:
And before someone says "but Manjaro arbitrarily holds back packages, bugged packages could slip through to the Stable branch" - this simply isn't true. The only thing we do completely arbitrarily is bring new packages from Arch Stable into the Manjaro Unstable branch (we currently have 5 repo maintainers and they can all do this whenever they want, it generally happens multiple times a day). When we're going to snap the current contents of Unstable branch to Testing branch is much less arbitrary, and when we're going to snap Testing branch contents to Stable branch is not really arbitrary at all.

This is why the time between updates to Testing and Stable branches can vary greatly (as can be seen here and here). We snap the contents of Unstable branch to Testing branch, then we wait on feedback for that snapshot of packages, and if the feedback is good, then that snapshot goes to Stable.

Last edited by Korrode (2015-02-18 01:23:08)

Korrode · 2015-02-18 00:57:52

clfarron4 wrote:

Also, some machines hate ~~the hell out of~~ the BFS scheduler, which is the default CPU scheduler of Manjaro.

Incorrect. The BFS CPU scheduler is not used in Manjaro kernels.
The BFQ I/O scheduler is, which i've never heard of causing a problem for anyone due to specific hardware (or anything for that matter, BFQ is great and Arch should adopt it into their kernels too, IMO).

Alad · 2015-02-18 01:18:19

You could just use Seblu's mirrors one month back and ignore security updates, and you'd have reinvented "Manjaro" ... but I'd suggest to stay on-topic instead of discuss the relative (non-)merits of Manjaro.

Interesting mailing list thread:

https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/a … 33791.html

Last edited by Alad (2015-02-18 01:23:32)

Korrode · 2015-02-18 01:26:20

Alad wrote:

You could just use Seblu's mirrors one month back and ignore security updates, and you'd have reinvented "Manjaro"

Heh, looks like i wasn't quick enough with my edit to my earlier post.

...and regarding security, since December Manjaro Stable users have been getting fast-tracked package updates for security bulletins considered 'critical' or 'high' importance.
https://manjaro.github.io/New-Security-Policy-Report/

Though I don't claim we're catching every little thing, and there are manpower issues, but it's certainly a better situation than it used to be.

Allan · 2015-02-18 02:51:46

Korrode wrote:

...and regarding security, since December Manjaro Stable users have been getting fast-tracked package updates for security bulletins considered 'critical' or 'high' importance.
https://manjaro.github.io/New-Security-Policy-Report/

Good to hear!

Trilby · 2015-02-18 03:12:42

Alad wrote:

but I'd suggest to stay on-topic instead of discuss the relative (non-)merits of Manjaro.

Yes please. Thank you.

Soukyuu · 2015-02-18 13:13:48

Personally, I just make a snapshot of my current installation before upgrading, and keep it until I know that everything works fine. Which usually means I replace it with a new one before the next (~monthly) update. After about a year of using arch I did run into a problem or two, but those were patched fast. And because I had my snapshot (that, and pacman cache), I could continue using everything by downgrading the offending package. As such, I don't think "but there might be new bugs introduced" is such a strong argument against arch. If anything, I had more issues with "stable" distros, where stuff was broken from the start and no one bothered to fix it because it was not a frequent use-case.

helix · 2015-02-21 01:34:13

The longest time I kept an Arch machine without updates was 11 months (almost 1 year), because this machine was not mine, I have been the only maintainer and hadn't met the owner during this long time. I managed to fully update it successfully, with only a few errors before that, however I would never recommend to anyone leaving a machine outdated for such long time, not even for half that time.

Arch Linux

#1 2015-01-26 13:15:51

Arch and infrequent updates

#2 2015-01-26 13:26:56

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#3 2015-01-26 15:15:57

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#4 2015-01-26 16:36:44

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#5 2015-01-28 08:07:51

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#6 2015-01-28 08:42:25

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#7 2015-01-28 13:32:07

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#8 2015-02-17 05:53:51

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#9 2015-02-17 06:22:25

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#10 2015-02-17 20:41:28

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#11 2015-02-18 00:54:16

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#12 2015-02-18 00:57:52

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#13 2015-02-18 01:18:19

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#14 2015-02-18 01:26:20

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#15 2015-02-18 02:51:46

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#16 2015-02-18 03:12:42

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#17 2015-02-18 13:13:48

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

#18 2015-02-21 01:34:13

Re: Arch and infrequent updates

Board footer