how stable is arch?

MONODA · 2008-05-08 07:07:57

By that I mean two things:
1. how often will things break and when they do how hard are they to fix?
2. what are the chances of a getting a full system lockup?
thanks.

ibendiben · 2008-05-08 07:19:22

It depends on you, how willing you are to look into arch, getting to know system configuration files, reading error messages/logs.
That said, I think arch is very stable.

Pyronhell · 2008-05-08 07:21:22

1. If you do all well, never.
2. I'm using Linux (more distros than arch) for three years, and Arch is the only one that never crashed. (Only doing a test on a terminal, writting a "magical command" that freezes linux xD).

_Marco_ · 2008-05-08 07:37:01

arch is really stable for me...
sometimes something broke but everything is so KISS that is simple to fix it

bangkok_manouel · 2008-05-08 07:42:24

MONODA wrote:

1. how often will things break and when they do how hard are they to fix?

Read the news, ML and forums and pacman install messages and you'll be fine. Never had anything I couldn't recover from (TBH, I can't even remember the last time something got badly b0rked, oh and I'm using [TESTING] by the way)

2. what are the chances of a getting a full system lockup?

If you know what you are doing, close to zero.

MONODA · 2008-05-08 08:03:51

sweet thanks, i was just asking this because I just had X crash on me, I think it was because of emelfm2...

jacko · 2008-05-08 12:48:48

I have been using arch for well over a year now. I can only think of two times I had issues with upgrade. Both where easy fixes!

With that said, I am still glad I use this bleeding edge distribution and wouldn't have it any other way. I have used other GNU/linux OS's and still find arch to be the better choice for me hands down.

Dr Small · 2008-05-08 12:55:08

I've been using Arch for 4 days now, and I think it is rock solid. It's what you build upon it, that could make it unstable.

zyghom · 2008-05-08 13:39:05

Dr Small wrote:

I've been using Arch for 4 days now, and I think it is rock solid. It's what you build upon it, that could make it unstable.

you want to say 4 days is a lot or what ?
or you misspelled days with years ? :-)

finferflu · 2008-05-08 13:46:53

I've been using Arch for about 1 year, and I have found it much more stable than the Debian-based distros. No Debian bashing intended, it might well be due to my incompetence. Still, Arch makes my life simpler.

Zepp · 2008-05-08 14:04:27

The only big problem I ever had was when somehow the modules for my current kernel got deleted :S. Not sure what happened, maybe a botched upgrade or something. Other than that, no big problems.

Last edited by Zepp (2008-05-08 14:05:06)

Allan · 2008-05-08 14:31:33

The last big upgrade problem I remember was the xorg upgrade in November last year. It was in [testing] for a long time and announced on the front page before it was moved to [extra] so I am not too sure what happened (I did not have a problem and was traveling at the time so my memory is sketchy). It was quite a big upgrade and somewhat expected anyway. Can't remember the previous "big" issue before that. Possibly that coreutils update that was broken upstream...

In general, I would proclaim Arch stable because I have never had a problem that cause my computer not to boot or X not to start. But with a rolling release system, you are bound to run into small problems on some upgrades. We have the testing repo to iron out the big updates before pushing them to users.

In general, if you read the front page news and output from pacman, you should be able to maintain a stable system even with joys of rolling releases.

Last edited by Allan (2008-05-08 14:32:05)

MONODA · 2008-05-08 15:07:44

thank you for your input

kensai · 2008-05-08 15:14:19

I have never had Arch break on me, not even freeze. But I have had Mandriva Ubuntu and Suse break and crash on me. That sums it all, more stable than stable distributions.

Dr Small · 2008-05-08 15:50:55

zyghom wrote:

Dr Small wrote:
I've been using Arch for 4 days now, and I think it is rock solid. It's what you build upon it, that could make it unstable.
you want to say 4 days is a lot or what ?
or you misspelled days with years ? :-)

No, I ment 4 days. I was just meaning, in the short amount of time I have used it, I find it very stable.
(Have been a Ubuntu User for 1 year and 6 months)

hrikkengaa · 2008-05-09 09:54:07

I've been using Arch for a few months now and for me Arch is by far the most stable distro out there....
A few apps have shown breakage, but the system as a whole has never shown any problem!

schivmeister · 2008-05-09 15:02:36

Never faced major issues either, not even the xorg thing Allan mentioned. I didn't even know there were issues when they were announced. Only times my system "locks up" is when I'm messing around with xorg.conf for pain and pleasure. Current uptime is 15 days worth of abuse without a single hiccup, so you can really tell how "stable" the system is.

Last edited by schivmeister (2008-05-09 15:04:22)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-05-08 07:07:57

how stable is arch?

#2 2008-05-08 07:19:22

Re: how stable is arch?

#3 2008-05-08 07:21:22

Re: how stable is arch?

#4 2008-05-08 07:37:01

Re: how stable is arch?

#5 2008-05-08 07:42:24

Re: how stable is arch?

#6 2008-05-08 08:03:51

Re: how stable is arch?

#7 2008-05-08 12:48:48

Re: how stable is arch?

#8 2008-05-08 12:55:08

Re: how stable is arch?

#9 2008-05-08 13:39:05

Re: how stable is arch?

#10 2008-05-08 13:46:53

Re: how stable is arch?

#11 2008-05-08 14:04:27

Re: how stable is arch?

#12 2008-05-08 14:31:33

Re: how stable is arch?

#13 2008-05-08 15:07:44

Re: how stable is arch?

#14 2008-05-08 15:14:19

Re: how stable is arch?

#15 2008-05-08 15:50:55

Re: how stable is arch?

#16 2008-05-09 09:54:07

Re: how stable is arch?

#17 2008-05-09 15:02:36

Re: how stable is arch?

Board footer