Best server distro?

Greenstuff · 2009-11-25 13:08:36

Hi,
I am seriously considering abandoning my Ubuntu server. The reason why I set up my server with ubuntu is a historical one. Once upon a time, I used this distro, so it seemed natural to run my server with it. However these days Arch is my system of choice. I want to ditch ubuntu as a server, mainly because I have how it's built to be complex. I'd like to more to a more KISS like system, like Arch. However, Arch is a rolling release, and I want a stable server I won't have to update often. I was wondering what are good choices in your opinions? I was thinking about Debian, but I'm afraid it's too ubuntu - like. Slackware also attracted my eye but I have no experience with it. What do you use for servers? Which distros do you recommend? The server's just a simple media / file server I made out of an old box I have.

.:B:. · 2009-11-25 13:22:00

Arch is *very* stable if you a) do regular updates and b) read the frontpage news and act upon it. On the other hand, there is no focus whatsoever on security, and for a server I think that's even more critical than for a desktop.

There is no perfect solution, you should decide what is the most important for you and base your choice on that.

cliffbreaker · 2009-11-25 13:38:34

I would recommend FreeBSD, but it's quite hard to learn, although extremely stable

wuischke · 2009-11-25 13:43:45

I personally use Debian. Imho, most of the complexity comes from application configuration and not Debian itself.

My main reason for Debian is that things don't change. This is also horrible for the developer in me, because you get very outdated software, but the sysadmin in me sleeps calmly. Not a single problem so far, whilst I had to fight a couple of times with my developer PC running Arch. I wouldn't use Debian stable for a desktop, though.

Arch on the other hand is probably fine for a home server, but I personally wouldn't want to administer it for a non-private server as it takes too much of my time and there are sometimes changes requiring user intervention (e.g. postgres 8.3-8.4, recent php split).

(Side note: I run Debian in a vm for local development now, as there are often subtle differences between the recent software in Arch and the old software in Debian. I have a second vm running Ubuntu for trying out new technology, because Arch had problems with Sproutcore and Kepler and it's less effort in the end.)

combuster · 2009-11-25 14:07:09

CentOS seems to be distro of choice for servers in Serbia (from what I've heard). However I would agree with B that Arch linux could be a fine server, build a custom kernel optimized for server (you have to watch git repo for fixes regarding security in that case) and always read news and follow bbs here before updating (some updates might broke something but for me that was never the case).

Ghost1227 · 2009-11-25 14:14:47

I've always found Debian to be the best Linux distro for server use. Keep your eyes on the Arch Server project though... It has potential in the long run.

Misfit138 · 2009-11-25 14:19:03

OpenBSD is the cleanest, most stable, simple and secure server in my experience.
As far as distros, the ones that have been mentioned are all worth a go, imho; Centos. Debian stable, Slack.

lucke · 2009-11-25 14:45:54

The potentially nice thing about Ubuntu on a server is ksplice support - several people irc through my (Arch) server and thus I'm a bit reluctant to reboot it to boot into the updated kernel.

.:B:. · 2009-11-25 15:31:05

That being said, ksplice doesn't always work a 100%... I tried it (once, I'll be honest) and it just made my system crash.

Allan · 2009-11-25 15:35:19

I put another +1 for CentOS/Debian. I have had to use them both and they did the job nicely.

Although, I am crazy enough to use Arch on mine and I know that I am not the only one...

Alphalutra1 · 2009-11-25 17:06:20

Misfit138 wrote:

OpenBSD is the cleanest, most stable, simple and secure server in my experience. .

Before I say anything I would like to let it known that I love OpenBSD.

However, with the end of the -STABLE branch of ports, if you use any packages, I find it not to be simple to maintain. If you stay with the -STABLE branch of the operating system, new packages are not made and you can't follow the -CURRENT ports tree. So you're left with unupdated packages, which acquire security holes, which are a pain to have to try and deal with. Recently there has been a push by one developer to start backporting security fixes to the -STABLE ports tree, but I'm not sure the extent of this and whether or not the new packages are pushed to the pkg server, or if you have to compile them through ports.

The other choice is to follow -CURRENT, or rather the snapshots. The problem here is that acquiring packages is incredibly hit or miss since they are compiled on one version of the snapshot. So if I have a different snapshot version, the packages will not work or install. So you have to build everything yourself from the -CURRENT ports tree, and when you update to a different snapshot, you then have to rebuild your whole ports tree... You can see the hassle.

If everything you need is included in the base OS that openbsd distributes, then yes it is the stable, simple, and secure server experience (for mail servers, firewalls, routers, wireless APs, very very basic desktops (no graphical browser), etc.)

For more complicated systems, FreeBSD seems to be the way to go. You can track the release versions which only have security and stability fixes backported either through binaries with freebsd_update or through source by csup'ing your source tree and compiling in the fixes. Likewise for ports, there is only one ports tree, that has the most up to date packages. But you can always download packages from the ftp server that keeps them up to date. Likewise, you can compile your own. The nice thing is freebsd has a port called portaudit that will show you any ports installed that have security problems. You can selectively update only these ports, keeping hassle down to a minimum and peace of mind high since a security team tracks all the vulnerabilities and you can instantly figure out if you're vulnerable. Gentoo also has a very similar approach with glsa-check instead of portaudit if you'd like to stick with linux.

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

anrxc · 2009-11-25 17:27:18

Greenstuff wrote:

However these days Arch is my system of choice.

Slackware would feel natural to you. It's a joy to work with, while you have just a server or two (or 5)... with more than that you would probably be happier with Debian or CentOS.

Ruckus · 2009-11-25 17:43:22

I've been using Arch on my web hosting servers for about a year now, longer on my home servers. I've not ever run into any problems on my web hosts, I have had a few issues on my home server, but that's because I also use it as a media center and do a lot of experimenting around with software on it.

.:B:. · 2009-11-25 18:27:37

anrxc wrote:

Greenstuff wrote:
However these days Arch is my system of choice.
Slackware would feel natural to you. It's a joy to work with, while you have just a server or two (or 5)...

Except that package management, imho, can never get to the level that pacman can provide. Besides that there's nothing keeping me from using it as a server (well there is, but nothing that is as big a hurdle as this).

Nezmer · 2009-11-25 18:53:18

You would be surprised how stable Arch is when you have nothing related to X installed(aka server stuff). Maybe because server-related packages come from a well-tested upstream.

I've been using Arch for months in my personal VPS. Not a single hiccup.

So , I highly recommend Arch for personal usage. For high-scale , you would use some long-term supported OS with emphasis on stability and security (Debian ,RHEL and clones , *BSD)

anrxc · 2009-11-25 20:15:38

B wrote:

anrxc wrote:
Slackware would feel natural to you. It's a joy to work with, while you have just a server or two (or 5)...
Except that package management, imho, can never get to the level that pacman can provide.

Everything I wrote about it was mostly based on package management (other recommendations also, and partially on stability). I'm lobbying for Slackware over other distributions he is considering, shouldn't skip it just because he thinks he doesn't know it.

I assumed Arch is not an option, if I'm wrong then I dare say that - if you disregard the stability of old, proven and tested packages - Arch can be a better Slackware than Slackware it self.

gazj · 2009-11-25 22:19:37

I used to use arch on my server, but I found things break (ie critical services) which is not in anyway the Arch devs fault. It is the nature of rolling release.

I now use slackware for my server, it is as steady as a rock. Subscribe to the slackware-security lists, then look into slackpkg (now officially in slackware as an extension of the more common package tools).

Slackpkg update = pacman -Sy
Slackpkg upgrade-all = pacman -Su

Really maintaining slackware packages is no more or less difficult than mainating arch ones, only packages you install outside the official slackware tree will require some of your time.

sand_man · 2009-11-25 23:02:25

I'm no system admin but I switched my home file/proxy/torrent server from Arch to FreeBSD and never looked back.

crouse · 2009-11-26 05:55:00

I use Arch on my servers, have for years actually.

jowilkin · 2009-11-26 06:33:48

+1 to CentOS. You have the backing of a large corporation with a bunch of people whose job it is to make servers just work. I used to use Ubuntu on all the servers I admin (over 100) because I inherited from the previous admin. I formatted everything and went to CentOS and couldn't be happier with the setup.

I use Arch on my desktop and laptop, but wouldn't use it on my servers.

.:B:. · 2009-11-26 07:51:17

anrxc wrote:

B wrote:
anrxc wrote:
Slackware would feel natural to you. It's a joy to work with, while you have just a server or two (or 5)...
Except that package management, imho, can never get to the level that pacman can provide.
Everything I wrote about it was mostly based on package management (other recommendations also, and partially on stability). I'm lobbying for Slackware over other distributions he is considering, shouldn't skip it just because he thinks he doesn't know it.
I assumed Arch is not an option, if I'm wrong then I dare say that - if you disregard the stability of old, proven and tested packages - Arch can be a better Slackware than Slackware it self.

I was merely venting my own feelings about Slackware package management, ignore me .

Slackpkg looks interesting - but it's more the packaging format I'm concerned with than the package managers.

gazj · 2009-11-26 11:25:09

B wrote:

anrxc wrote:
B wrote:
Except that package management, imho, can never get to the level that pacman can provide.
Everything I wrote about it was mostly based on package management (other recommendations also, and partially on stability). I'm lobbying for Slackware over other distributions he is considering, shouldn't skip it just because he thinks he doesn't know it.
I assumed Arch is not an option, if I'm wrong then I dare say that - if you disregard the stability of old, proven and tested packages - Arch can be a better Slackware than Slackware it self.
I was merely venting my own feelings about Slackware package management, ignore me .
Slackpkg looks interesting - but it's more the packaging format I'm concerned with than the package managers.

Don't get me wrong pacman is far superior, but slackware package management does not have to be as manual as many think. I have thought about a slackware based distro with pacman but unfortunately I do not have the skill to pull this off.

mikesd · 2009-11-26 12:12:53

Have used Debian for years as a server OS. Would also consider CentOS or even Fedora. Ubuntu looks interesting with their private cloud available out of the box.

cactus · 2009-11-29 00:40:02

CentOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD.
I personally detest debian based systems.

I run across gentoo servers once in a while (at various jobs), and I always boggle. Worst.Server.Distro.Ever.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-11-25 13:08:36

Best server distro?

#2 2009-11-25 13:22:00

Re: Best server distro?

#3 2009-11-25 13:38:34

Re: Best server distro?

#4 2009-11-25 13:43:45

Re: Best server distro?

#5 2009-11-25 14:07:09

Re: Best server distro?

#6 2009-11-25 14:14:47

Re: Best server distro?

#7 2009-11-25 14:19:03

Re: Best server distro?

#8 2009-11-25 14:45:54

Re: Best server distro?

#9 2009-11-25 15:31:05

Re: Best server distro?

#10 2009-11-25 15:35:19

Re: Best server distro?

#11 2009-11-25 17:06:20

Re: Best server distro?

#12 2009-11-25 17:27:18

Re: Best server distro?

#13 2009-11-25 17:43:22

Re: Best server distro?

#14 2009-11-25 18:27:37

Re: Best server distro?

#15 2009-11-25 18:53:18

Re: Best server distro?

#16 2009-11-25 20:15:38

Re: Best server distro?

#17 2009-11-25 22:19:37

Re: Best server distro?

#18 2009-11-25 23:02:25

Re: Best server distro?

#19 2009-11-26 05:55:00

Re: Best server distro?

#20 2009-11-26 06:33:48

Re: Best server distro?

#21 2009-11-26 07:51:17

Re: Best server distro?

#22 2009-11-26 11:25:09

Re: Best server distro?

#23 2009-11-26 12:12:53

Re: Best server distro?

#24 2009-11-29 00:40:02

Re: Best server distro?

Board footer