Considering Arch For My New Home Server

jlacroix · 2011-02-25 17:32:02

My wife and I both use Arch full time on our desktop and two laptops, and we enjoy it a lot. Right now our current home server also runs Arch and works very reliably. In fact I don't think I ever had a problem with it. The server we use has some major hardware on it that would probably make it better off as a standard desktop and not a server (it has a great video card, for example) so I decided to buy or build a new server to replace it. (The current server is over four years old). The server will be responsible for SSH, Unison, DNS, and Samba.

I have decided to have three hard drives. One will be dedicated to the root and swap partitions. The other two will be dedicated to /home and will be on a software RAID1. The reason for this is because redundancy on the OS is not important to me (a Clonezilla image that I'll have stored will quickly restore the OS if I ever need to recover it) but redundancy on the data is really important since it will house all of our media (over 500GB worth). I have an offsite backup too so that's not an issue either. Also notable is the fact that the server will not have any GUI at all. Just the kernel and whatever is required to facilitate what it serves.

Anyway, here is where I'm wondering if Arch is still a good choice. My current server uses Arch and works 100% reliably, but is also not on any form of RAID either. Considering how often Arch changes, I fear that maybe an update would come along that would break the RAID, and that's the last thing I want to have happen. How reliable is Arch on a server from a RAID standpoint? I am also considering Debian, however, Debian packages rarely match the versions of our computers (especially Unison) so I don't think Debian serving an almost primarily Arch Linux household would work well.

Last edited by jlacroix (2011-02-25 17:33:08)

jdarnold · 2011-02-25 18:07:46

It's a perfect choice and very much the way I have my server set up. The great thing about Arch is that it doesn't install anything you don't tell it to, so it is very easy to create a straight forward, text-only server.

Kirurgs · 2011-02-25 20:38:46

The thing with servers are don't fix if ain't broken, so install everything on arch, configure till it works and forget about if it has no issues That's what I did with my so called router/media server/etc/etc/etc, I have everything in one box and have not touched it like for a year or so... it works like a charm

rwd · 2011-02-25 22:15:56

I've had a Intel atom based home server running for about half a year without major issues. That said, a rolling release like Arch will mean bigger chance of breakage. And if your server is connected to the internet you need to keep it up-to-date. Just use the lts-kernel and schedule updates when you have some time to fix things and you'll be alright.

sprungknoedl · 2011-02-25 22:50:20

rwd wrote:

I've had a Intel atom based home server running for about half a year without major issues. That said, a rolling release like Arch will mean bigger chance of breakage. And if your server is connected to the internet you need to keep it up-to-date. Just use the lts-kernel and schedule updates when you have some time to fix things and you'll be alright.

+1

i use my clients to test some packages before putting them on my homeserver. so far no problems.

jlacroix · 2011-02-25 23:15:50

Thanks guys. Another reason I ask is because I thought I read something somewhere where an update broke RAID for some people. Is that true? Also, those of you that have replied, do you use RAID? I think RAID is my only concern. I'm just concerned that I'd be in a situation where I have a RAID1 that works, but then I find out it stopped mirroring without notice.

Last edited by jlacroix (2011-02-25 23:20:59)

jdarnold · 2011-02-26 01:59:58

My server uses raid, although I have to admit it's currently broken. Only one drive is mirrored, for reasons I have yet to get to the bottom of.

Really should figure it out...

rwd · 2011-02-26 08:06:58

I don't use raid. If you want redundancy but with a more straightforward setup that is easier to fix/maintain you could use something like rdiff-backup instead. In my case a daily cron job backups the entire harddisk incrementally to the other. The benefit over raid is that it contains backward incrementals so you can get older versions of files. The downside is that in case the main disk crashes it takes a little more work to get the system up and running again,

zenlord · 2011-02-26 09:08:44

I have an Arch server with hardware RAID for about 2 years now. Never had any problems, although I don't update it a lot (once every 6 months I guess).

I am about to reinstall it, but that's only because I bought an SSD and an extra disk to put in the RAID. Since I didn't use LVM the first time I installed this RAID, I have to backup and rebuild the RAID entirely...

/EDIT: if you share all of your media across the network from that server, you should really read up on uPNP / DLNA...

Last edited by zenlord (2011-02-26 09:10:16)

jlacroix · 2011-02-26 16:02:51

Thanks everyone. I am petty much dead set on RAID1. My other question would be, if the RAID fails, does it notify me in any way, or do I have to keep checking it?

TheCox · 2011-03-01 03:52:29

jlacroix wrote:

Thanks everyone. I am petty much dead set on RAID1. My other question would be, if the RAID fails, does it notify me in any way, or do I have to keep checking it?

It won't notify you automatically. I have a daily cron task that checks /proc/mdstat and emails me if it changes.

colyte · 2011-03-17 22:26:26

I got 2 servers running Arch (2-3 years or so). Both with software raid5. I update them frequently and there's never been an issue.

jlacroix · 2011-03-18 00:06:00

colyte wrote:

I got 2 servers running Arch (2-3 years or so). Both with software raid5. I update them frequently and there's never been an issue.

Thanks, that's good to know. I thought I'd have the money for the server by now, but still don't. I hope to do this ASAP it will be a very fun project.

sigmund · 2011-03-18 01:44:28

From my point of view, RAID should never be software, but a real hardware implementation and the only vendor I know that *REALLY* does this is 3com.
Since the OS, in a real hardware solution (that requires no drivers at all) does not know anything on it, that is the only solution I really trust.

If you should ever choose this solution RAID5+1 spare HDD might be the best and that would let you forget this kind of problem forever: even in the case 1 and even 2 disks failed at once.

But this solution, of course, is expensive (I think around 300-500 bucks) and the reason software RAID exists.
As usual, it depends on the available budget.

colyte · 2011-03-18 07:55:26

First off, 3com is not the only one that *really* does this. Secondly, any home user and most small business will never have a need for hardware raid. Actually you will have rather strict requirements if you ever will need to use a controller that specifically does raid.

Linux software raid is rock solid. The raid setup can be transferred to any box. You will not have to go and get a new controller of the same type to get it up and running again.

If one were to spend money, spend it on drives. So you can use RAID6 instead of RAID5.

fukawi2 · 2011-03-18 13:04:36

jdarnold wrote:

It's a perfect choice and very much the way I have my server set up.

That's well and good until 12 months later when you decide you want to install new package X, which depends on lib A, which means lib A has to be updated, but packages Y, Z, R, T,W,Q and V all need to be updated because they also depend on lib A and you end up with a big borked box.

Yes, experience has learnt me that

There's always ArchServer (Full Disclosure: I'm the project coordinator )

Last edited by fukawi2 (2011-03-18 13:05:53)

Arch Linux

#1 2011-02-25 17:32:02

Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#2 2011-02-25 18:07:46

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#3 2011-02-25 20:38:46

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#4 2011-02-25 22:15:56

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#5 2011-02-25 22:50:20

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#6 2011-02-25 23:15:50

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#7 2011-02-26 01:59:58

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#8 2011-02-26 08:06:58

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#9 2011-02-26 09:08:44

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#10 2011-02-26 16:02:51

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#11 2011-03-01 03:52:29

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#12 2011-03-17 22:26:26

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#13 2011-03-18 00:06:00

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#14 2011-03-18 01:44:28

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#15 2011-03-18 07:55:26

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

#16 2011-03-18 13:04:36

Re: Considering Arch For My New Home Server

Board footer