Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

kmason · 2010-03-30 05:54:40

Since AFAIK, the option to update with pacman is not automatic (also because my hosting account with my provider is running out in September, while my domain is safe for another 4 years and if I host it myself, its pretty much free), would it be possible to use ArchLinux for a live Web Server, provided you don't update as often, only updating critical packages for the server to run (such as Apache, PHP, MySQL, etc.)?

I say this, as ArchServer says that it is currently unstable for live development, and ArchLinux Stable's download links are either not present, or broken links, and I really don't want to use another distro if I don't have to.

If so, any tips for an optimal setup? Would it be recommended to have a pacman ignorelist of all the packages that I don't want updated regularly, in case I get lazy and accidentally do a full system upgrade?

brianhanna · 2010-03-30 10:34:06

If this server is accessible only from your local LAN it might be ok but I'd think if people can get to it from the outside you may leave yourself more open to being hacked with older versions of software running on it.

ngoonee · 2010-03-30 10:38:02

How critical is this web server. I'd actually recommend the opposite, keep your server updated every week or so. Its a barebones server (presumably), so as long as you keep an eye on the [arch-dev-public] list you should know what's coming up.

Also, if you replicate the services you run on the server on another computer you can 'test' updates first to ensure no big breakages occur.

kmason · 2010-03-30 12:28:50

Well, the reason for not updating as often, was that in a server, you don't want to be changing the configuration too often, especially when it could mean having to restart the computer.

However, if I avoid all but the necessary packages (meaning if it is a new kernel or something, don't update it), I may be okay with updating more frequently.

And you're probably right, as I won't be installing X, its probably not that big a deal to update it more often.

BTW: This web server, will be hosting my current site (see my profile), which is essentially my attempt at promoting myself in a freelance web design venture.

.:B:. · 2010-03-30 12:39:27

The less frequent your updates are, the more you'll be exposed to vulnerabilities. Arch has no specific security policy, so running the latest software is often the best 'solution'.

There is the Arch Server project, don't know if they have a different approach though.

kmason · 2010-03-30 18:29:22

Yeah, I was at first interested in the Arch Server project, til I saw the line that said that it wasn't ready for live development use on their website.

So, I guess I'm going to have to find a way to update frequently, without having to disrupt the server's uptime too much.

.:B:. · 2010-03-30 18:36:27

You should only reboot for kernel updates, nothing more. The rest can be done by restarting services etc. If necessary you can also use kexec, so you wouldn't have to reboot for kernel updates either, but I don't know how reliable it is.

hatten · 2010-03-30 19:03:47

Judging by my pacman.log there is roughly 3 kernel upgrades per month, so 3 reboots per month.

brianhanna · 2010-03-31 00:29:59

How about using the LTS kernel? I've never used it so I'm not sure how often it gets updated.

kmason · 2010-03-31 03:05:55

I'm intrigued - I'll look in the AUR and Package database for this "LTS Kernel", as it seems like it may be what I'm looking for. Thanks.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-03-30 05:54:40

Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#2 2010-03-30 10:34:06

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#3 2010-03-30 10:38:02

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#4 2010-03-30 12:28:50

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#5 2010-03-30 12:39:27

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#6 2010-03-30 18:29:22

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#7 2010-03-30 18:36:27

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#8 2010-03-30 19:03:47

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#9 2010-03-31 00:29:59

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

#10 2010-03-31 03:05:55

Re: Is Arch suitable for a live Web Server, with less frequent updates?

Board footer