You are not logged in.
Well, tittle says it all, say I want to deploy a samba server on a corporate environment, is arch suitable for this? I mean, how stable is it for this kind of stuff? being a rolling release my guess is that it isnt, correct me if im wrong.
just want to hear your opinions and past experiences ![]()
regards
Linux user #498977
With microsoft you get windows and gates, with linux you get the whole house!
My Blog about ArchLinux and other stuff
Offline
If you have to ask then the answer is no.
Offline
The real "instability" issues with archlinux and its rolling release model are:
1. package A updates and breaks package B.
(hal has been a frequent offender)
2. packages like drupal that are NOT a drop-in replacement and are broken by just dropping the new version in.
Both these issues could probably be fixed by a gtear maintainer with a few weeks to spare but more properly should be fixed upstream.
I usually make a coffee while updating so I miss any messages pacman flashes by.
Of course I could always be missing something, being a newbie to arch. Still even with these quirks ArchLinux is the best or "least bad" distro I've used
Offline
The thing with servers in big, corporate environments is that you're usually supposed to avoid putting them through constant updates, as with every update there's a chance that something could break. If you do decide to go with Arch, I might recommend having a "test" server, which is basically on a mini simulated network (say, some VMs or something), which gets updates daily or weekly, which you develop a series of stress-tests for. After every update cycle it goes through, test everything that people are supposed to use the server for. If everything seems to be in order, you can update the main server, _BUT_ be prepared to backtrack in case things go wrong.
It might be better to go with Debian or Slackware or CentOS, though, if you're worried that an update might break something. Not to say that updates won't break things there, either, but the updates there are typically slower, and supposedly more tested.
But even if you go with one of those, I'd still recommend a test server. I'm serious. All the cool kids are doing it.
"He says the best way out is always through.
And I agree to that, or in so far
As that I can see no way out but through—
Leastways for me" -Robert Frost
Offline
I run arch as the server at my small business, and while it is stable for the most part, there have been a couple of updates over the years that would have been show stoppers in a corporate environment. I run a test server, but even then, where the hardware is not identical, there have been a few issues.
Offline
At work im actually running ubuntu server. Its pretty stable and security updates has not messed up things yet. I just wanted some insights on this because arch its pretty damn fast I tought I could use the speed on a corp environment. Reading your opinions I think that arch could be a great server if:
1. Only high priority and security updates were offered on automatic updating.
2. This one is optional, but commercial support could be given based on a ticket or monthly basis.
3. Some archwiki server specific installation instructions. Like setting up a samba and mail server from scratch along with some monitoring tools.
Regarding point 2 it could be a good source of income for mantaining the arch project running ![]()
Just my thought about this.
Linux user #498977
With microsoft you get windows and gates, with linux you get the whole house!
My Blog about ArchLinux and other stuff
Offline
You might be interested in archserver.org - afaik they haven't released anything yet, but you could always help them out.
Offline
thanks for the link, didnt know such a thing existed ![]()
Seems like they are just starting, but looks pretty promising ![]()
Linux user #498977
With microsoft you get windows and gates, with linux you get the whole house!
My Blog about ArchLinux and other stuff
Offline