Is Arch good for a server?.

Darksoul · 2009-03-14 03:55:28

I'm looking into two main Distros right now for my server. Arch linux and Ubuntu. Gentoo is on the side to but I really don't want to use it.

I'm familiar with Ubuntu but I also think Arch would be best, Undecided though.

I'm looking for something stable and at the same time lightweight.

Inxsible · 2009-03-14 04:01:16

Darksoul wrote:

I'm looking into two main Distros right now for my server. Arch linux and Ubuntu. Gentoo is on the side to but I really don't want to use it.
I'm familiar with Ubuntu but I also think Arch would be best, Undecided though.
I'm looking for something stable and at the same time lightweight.

I would say look into Debian. Its much more stable than Ubuntu IMO.

Darksoul · 2009-03-14 04:02:02

So Arch is not quite up there for servers yet?.

ralvez · 2009-03-14 04:11:50

I like Arch a lot but if you are looking for a stable server I hate to tell you but it ain't Arch.
It depends what you want it for. Is it a production system, an essential service or it is just a set up for learning?
If the latter, Arch is OK but for production environment you should be looking at Slackware or if it is a corporate network Red Hat Enterprise may be more in order.

R.

Darksoul · 2009-03-14 04:15:21

It's going to be up 24/7 but a hour of downtime a week won't hurt anything.

Dang, I wanted Arch. What would the problem be with Arch?. I honestly don't know much about it.

Inxsible · 2009-03-14 04:23:50

The basic idea about a server is stability. You cannot have a rolling release OS and also get 100% stability. They just don't go together very well. Having said that, Debian may also run into issues with some security patches that they provide between releases, but its atleast better than getting updates every few days.

ralvez · 2009-03-14 04:24:42

Cutting edge distributions do not make good servers. A production server MUST be stable and very reliable. Arch is a great distribution but is inclined to be cutting edge so ... there are too many things that can go wrong in a production environment that will potentially take you down for more than just 1 hour a week.

R.

Edit: @Inxsible,

Man you are fast typing !!

Last edited by ralvez (2009-03-14 04:26:16)

bangkok_manouel · 2009-03-14 04:31:54

arch website is running on an arch server. any distro will do the job if you know what you are doing.

Ghost1227 · 2009-03-14 04:37:18

For 99% of the time that it's been up, my server has run Arch. So have sites run by rson, cactus, stythys and many others in the community. The only real problem with setting up a server running Arch is the difficulty in setting up services. Email servers especially tend to be difficult to configure. If you're looking for an easy way to set up a server (especially if you have multiple domains) check out ISPConfig on Debian or Ubuntu. If you're looking for a challenge (and don't mind a bit of downtime while you figure things out) go ahead and try Arch.

My best advice is to set up your server with something simple, and then set up a server on your local computer (a virtual machine would help) and figure out how to get a solid Arch server set up that way. Once you're comfortable with it, backup your existing data and migrate to a shiny new Arch server!

Darksoul · 2009-03-14 04:49:58

The issue with that is it would likely be in a datacenter at that time for colocation, and unless I can install arch on top of the OS and then make it the primary and at the same time configure it to work correctly on the IP so on reboot I can access it.. yeah.

Arch lets me do the updating correct, or will it automatically update the system?. If I can control the updates then I don't see a big issue with the rolling release.

sand_man · 2009-03-14 05:24:43

My (Arch) server is fine. i update regularly I just don't update the kernel unless I need to.

Last edited by sand_man (2009-03-14 05:24:57)

ssl6 · 2009-03-14 06:33:22

i have a lamp server running on arch right now at home, haven't put it online or anything, jsut within my local network, it was something to do, so far the last few mysql updates have been an issue, the first update broke it, the next one fixed it, then it was broken, now its fixed again. with arch though you have to do the updates manually anyway. i've grown into the habbit of checking what updates are available, and if i see something like kernel, mysql, samba, xorg, or anything important along those lines.....i check the package update forum on here to see if anyones had issues, and read up on solutions so i can fix any small glitch right away

FrozenFox · 2009-03-14 07:31:49

I've set up 3 LAMP servers on Arch with pretty few problems after initial configuration. The site/wiki is usually kept well up to date with necessary changes on such things, and got me fixed up after problematic updates with minimal pain.

That said, you probably shouldn't do that unless (pretty much just as others have said):

1) It's for use only for yourself and a couple friends or something, unless you can put time into extra manual security configuration. Of course this is expected with any server, but minimal auto-configuration is done with arch for the most part. I don't have any objective measure, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume debian stable's packages and defaults would be more secure. Any system can more or less be set up identically to another with enough work, though.
2) You're okay with dealing with occasional problems if you update frequently, which rolling release probably should be. Alternatively, learn how to revert packages before doing anything else .
3) You have the time to spend on setting it up. It can be a bit of a pain, depending on what you want to do. Of course, the opposite can also be true if you've already done this stuff many times before on another distro.

Basically, unless you have a really pressing reason (or just feel adventurous), I'd agree once again with the others above and suggest debian for a server. Generally quicker setup, more time-tested, and (if you intend to use it beyond a small group of people) a pretty strong security team. It will also be somewhat familiar for you, knowing ubuntu. Arch servers are a lot of fun though

Last edited by FrozenFox (2009-03-14 07:34:24)

RobertoVanto · 2009-03-14 07:50:58

Why not FreeBSD? It's similar to Archlinux for some aspects.

.:B:. · 2009-03-14 08:07:42

I and a friend of mine are running a slice with Arch on it. It has been on and off - mostly because we weren't sure of which direction we wanted to go, and because we didn't use it intensively.

We now switched it back to Arch, it has been Arch and CentOS before. I am quite allergic to RPM setups (but then again I don't do anything with Linux professionally, and RedHat, Debian and the likes are things you can't avoid in that area) and the advantages of Arch (ABS, AUR, clear configuration) are clear imho.

It is a hobby system though, running a few sites. It's no drama if it has some downtime (although some people won't like it if their site can't be reached ).

fukawi2 · 2009-03-14 11:02:50

bangkok_manouel wrote:

arch website is running on an arch server. any distro will do the job if you know what you are doing.

I run 2 VPS' on Arch without issue - a web server and an email server. I segregated them just because I'm a nerd

Ghost1227 wrote:

... Email servers especially tend to be difficult to configure.

Amen to that. It took me about a day to get Postfix with Virtual Domains and PostgreSQL backend up and running, but about a week to then integrate Mailman with that!

Daenyth · 2009-03-14 12:34:44

I don't know if I would use Arch on a production machine, but for anything less, I would have no hesitations. The stability of a system is measured primarily by the competance of the sysadmin. Distro plays a part, but it's not the main one.

R00KIE · 2009-03-14 15:37:40

I've been using Arch for a while now and the worst problem I've had are related with upstream changes (hal comes to mind). Distros like red hat, centos, debian, fedora and other might not give you so much trouble when updating. On the other hand if you wait a while and check the news and the forums before updating you will see what can make you hit the wall with your head and be prepared beforehand (and still have things more up to date than other distros).
You can also have a "ghost/test subject" system that you update first and check if everything goes well, also considering what I've learned since I've started using Arch then if you use it everyday then you will be prepared to deal with any glitches that may come up and also the wiki and forums are a great source of help. Specially the forums have people with a very good knowledge of how things works always willing to help and thats great.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-03-14 03:55:28

Is Arch good for a server?.

#2 2009-03-14 04:01:16

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#3 2009-03-14 04:02:02

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#4 2009-03-14 04:11:50

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#5 2009-03-14 04:15:21

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#6 2009-03-14 04:23:50

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#7 2009-03-14 04:24:42

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#8 2009-03-14 04:31:54

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#9 2009-03-14 04:37:18

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#10 2009-03-14 04:49:58

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#11 2009-03-14 05:24:43

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#12 2009-03-14 06:33:22

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#13 2009-03-14 07:31:49

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#14 2009-03-14 07:50:58

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#15 2009-03-14 08:07:42

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#16 2009-03-14 11:02:50

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#17 2009-03-14 12:34:44

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

#18 2009-03-14 15:37:40

Re: Is Arch good for a server?.

Board footer