Arch as a server

scottro · 2002-12-30 15:17:04

This weekend, I was playing with Arch and Crux on a few boxes. One thing that has always impressed me about Arch is the pacman system--it seems to be everything that RPMS should have been.

I have an affection for source based distros, however--today, for example, I felt like redoing my workstation at work. Were I to use Gentoo, it would take 3-4 hours. (I would use a stage 3 install, but then I'd be installing X, etc.) Were I to use FreeBSD, again, it would take a few hours--my workstation is relatively slow, and I'd be doing a make world after installation.

Were I to use Crux, it would take less time, but there would still be a lot of cd /usr/ports/clc/whatever ; makepkg -d, wait while it compiles then pkgadd *pkg* blah blah.

With Arch, I do a quick base install, reboot, install X which takes all of 2 or 3 minutes, configure X and then I can just type pacman -Sy whatever and forget about it--it also seems to take very little CPU time, vs. source based distros.

Also, thanks to the development teams, everything seems quite stable--I think, even using unofficial, I've only had one thing fail to compile in the 3 months or so that I've been playing
with Arch--oops, install--note the hangover from source based.

So, it seems to me that Arch might be an excellent server distro--able to be updated with very little disruption. I'm wondering, has anyone stressed it in the server area? At present, I can't really do so. Is it as stable as it seems? With pacman reminding me of apt-get, maybe you could start calling it something the Debian for the i686.

Anyway, just curious if anyone has really tested its stability and if it is as stable as it seems.

TIA

Scott

Arielext · 2002-12-30 17:01:37

I'm running Arch as workstation/server at the same time. But it's just for testing now. So I only get like 3 or 4 developers on the site at the same time. We ran the same test on suse 7.3 and the load averages of Arch are lower (one of the reasons we use Arch, the other reason is me ).
Installing and setting up a LAMPJ (Linux Apache Mysql PHP Java) on Arch is done within a few minutes once you figure out how to. Same goes for Suse, though the text files of suse are more complex.

I don't know for sure if Arch is a good distro for serveruse, but I'm 99% sure that it is.

ody · 2002-12-30 17:35:08

Ive been using AL since .1 as my dns, apache, mysql, postresql, sendmail, ftp etc etc etc servers

also I run a fileserver on my i586port of AL which runs samba and does the job very well...

all in all Ive had no problems what-so-ever with AL working as a server.

jk · 2002-12-30 17:39:11

on a server you need good security imho, which is an area where Arch lacks...

BluPhoenyx · 2002-12-31 00:01:27

jk:
I'm curious, where exactly do you feel that AL fails in regard to security?

ody · 2002-12-31 00:32:42

heh, AL actualy is on the fore-front of security, for the simple reason its built and aimed at compident nix users.. not half brain redhat morons.

All packages are 99% of the time up-to-date, if not you as an admin have no excuse for not simply modding a pkgbuild under the abs and updateding the problem yourself..

am I worng?

jk · 2002-12-31 00:35:14

well, the good thing about Arch security wise is that it keeps it's packages always up-to-date.

Bad thing is there's no security officer/team who checks if packages are vulnerable to holes for example mentioned on bugtraq. Sometimes, projects just release a patch to fix a security issue, not a new version.

Someone should just go through the system and check for possible security issues. Stuff like unnecessary setuid bits, setgid bits, permissions on devices, whatever

Also, there should be security announcements made, stuff like that...

ody · 2002-12-31 00:50:40

good points, you voluntering?

jk · 2002-12-31 00:58:05

Geeeeez, all of a sudden i'm very busy doing other stuff

jason · 2003-01-13 16:44:03

now you don't want Arch to become some sort of openbsd do you?? i run openbsd as a server on my firewall, router, webserver, mailserver, devbox, mysql, etc... and i download everything and compile it from sources. the one thing openbsd is good at is security...the bad thing is progression.

perhaps a security team (or person at this point) should be appointed that would be able to update packages and send notices...but i think anything more like holding back releases of new software for a review is kinda overkill.

just remember, it's not up to me, just my suggestion.

jk · 2003-01-14 11:56:37

well, the topic was Arch as a server, so i suggested security stuff for the server target. For a workstation it's less important...

i also run openbsd on my servers btw...openbsd goooood

I think Ody took the job of security officer...

apeiro · 2003-01-14 20:40:51

I've been using Arch on one of our intranet servers at work since 0.2. It provides http/https/ftp/smtp/smb/mysql services to the company and has done so flawlessly since I built it*.

* warning: server may be running flawlessly only because I have a detailed knowledge of the inner workings of arch.

apeiro · 2003-01-14 20:42:01

And yes, ody is our official security officer until he goes insane and quits.

Big thanks to ody for stepping up to the task.... w00t!

ody · 2003-01-14 22:26:38

its exciting, very exciting, yes master.. coming..

Arch Linux

#1 2002-12-30 15:17:04

Arch as a server

#2 2002-12-30 17:01:37

Re: Arch as a server

#3 2002-12-30 17:35:08

Re: Arch as a server

#4 2002-12-30 17:39:11

Re: Arch as a server

#5 2002-12-31 00:01:27

Re: Arch as a server

#6 2002-12-31 00:32:42

Re: Arch as a server

#7 2002-12-31 00:35:14

Re: Arch as a server

#8 2002-12-31 00:50:40

Re: Arch as a server

#9 2002-12-31 00:58:05

Re: Arch as a server

#10 2003-01-13 16:44:03

Re: Arch as a server

#11 2003-01-14 11:56:37

Re: Arch as a server

#12 2003-01-14 20:40:51

Re: Arch as a server

#13 2003-01-14 20:42:01

Re: Arch as a server

#14 2003-01-14 22:26:38

Re: Arch as a server

Board footer