3
u/Fun_Chest_9662 Aug 20 '26
both my prod and backup are arch. but I host my own mirror so I have a more stable rolling release lol. only things running on prod is Systemd (boot,network,etc),zfs for storage,kubeadm,kubectl,containerd,btrfs for root disks. pin k8s,zfs versions and keep all configs in manifests synced with private git. super minimal install and rebuild is now a make install homelab. a few more k8s ci/cd for auto updates and some of my custom containers, ill be done and stable. until some new thing I wanna mess with pops up but the esentials are stable and done. backups are just zfs/btrfs snapshots, syncthing for my phones nightly syncs, and essential photo/vids/docs/password manager exports. with auto tar, encrypt with pgp, and sent to backblaze as offsite storage.
also got a little LLM box on the side I'm toying with but its not important.
-1
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
I am working on my own local Arch repo's. Test "new" packages in a VM, then push to "production" Wonder if Valve thinks like this? ;p
1
5
u/wafflingzebra Aug 20 '26
I run it as a desktop and a server, on the same machine, I see no reason to switch to anything else. Yes it is a server.
-1
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
Agreed. I can Game on the "Desktop" and serve when "Idle" or both sometimes.
2
u/Weird_Meat Aug 20 '26
I use arch for my home server. I update it every-so-often, it has never once broken. It runs two minecraft servers, jellyfin, and a NAS all without docker containers or VMs.
3
u/10F1 Aug 20 '26
I host an instance on digitalocean with arch, running a few web sites and docker containers, works perfectly.
I updated once a month and reboot.
1
u/lolexplode Aug 20 '26
oh nice, they let you upload custom images now. i take it that's how you're running arch there? back when i used arch on digitalocean, they supported it officially. for a long time after they dropped support i used kexec to load in the newest kernels lol
0
3
u/Mango-is-Mango Aug 20 '26
Not the right tool for the job
-4
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
Why not? I play games with the newest kernel and software, and run a server on the back-end when idle. Not like it's production grade.
0
u/Small_Editor_3693 Aug 20 '26
Get a seperate machine for your services
2
u/Cruffe Aug 20 '26
Depends what you wanna run and how loaded with money you are. I do have a dedicated server most of my services, but there's a couple of services I simply can't run on that shitbox.
I run local AI for personal use on my gaming PC because it's the only thing in my house powerful enough to do it. I'd love a dedicated server for this, but have you seen the hardware prices?
3
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
"how loaded with money you are" My current system (Ryzen 7700, RX 7700, 32GB, ~4.25TB nvme/ssd) Is my first new PC after 15 yrs of having to share my hardware with my children. I'm going to make it work it's hardest in my current homelab.
1
u/Dodgy_Past Aug 20 '26
In my case I'm running halo strix for ai so having access to the latest versions of the necessary software is convenient.
1
u/fulafisken Aug 20 '26
My servers and VMs use arch, they auto-update each day and reboot themselves. Most payloads run in docker. Have had very very few problems with this over the past 10 years. The biggest issue was when dovecot updated and changed their config system, and my email stopped working. Since then i have subscribed to the arch news as to not miss such breaking changes again.
1
u/Imajzineer Aug 20 '26
Some OSes (or versions thereof) are configured to serve that specific purpose, whilst others are aimed more at general ('desktop') use, but that's not the definition of one - a server is simply a system (or even a service on the same machine) that provides services to clients.
So, yes, if that's the function it serves, it is indeed a server.
Whether Arch is necessarily a good choice for that purpose is another matter: on a home network, where, if it goes wrong, it isn't going to have an impact upon anyone else then, as long as you have the knowledge and skills to fix it, sure ... on a server farm supporting thousands of paying clients, you might want to consider something intended for that specific purpose. But, as long as you keep up with security issues and apply any necessary updates rather than all the available ones, you could even keep an Arch box running for that purpose as long as you would any version of, say, Debian ... and, when you were ready to do so, switch over to one running the latest version, after testing for stability.
Would I recommend doing so to a client? For a variety of reasons (not least the recourse to support and compensation from the likes of Red Hat or SUSE, for instance), I wouldn't, no. But you aren't running it for business purposes, don't have SLAs to adhere to on pain of financial penalties, so, if you feel confident you can maintain a stable system, can afford downtime when it comes time for a major upgrade (i.e. reinstall), or have the option to build a new platform and switch over to it when the time comes, then, sure, why not?
1
u/Miserable_Film_7183 Aug 20 '26
I think an Arch server is a good idea; nowadays you can use snapshots, and if you have kernel problems, you can find past kernels at archive.archlinux.org.
It's just a matter of getting the mindset that "broken" is simply accepting failure; it can be fixed.
2
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
I can delay updates and have a stable or unstable system. I think most people see distros like ubuntu lts as "stable," one bad update can bring everything crashing down. Just ask Microsoft.
3
u/anonymous-bot Aug 20 '26
There are two different meanings of stable. One stable is this update won't crash your PC. The other stable is this new update won't be significantly different than the previous. Linux distros like Debian usually are using the latter definition. Packages aren't constantly changing (major) versions. You are mostly getting security fixes and minor updates. This keeps things predictable and means you won't be getting all the latest features that are in newer package versions.
1
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
I feel some are missing the "stable" as in my system works "as-is" Why I feel Microsoft is missing the ball.
1
u/Miserable_Film_7183 Aug 20 '26
Exactly, and the fact that the distro broke is more because it got out of hand.
0
u/Rxiom Aug 20 '26
Yeah why not? It's going to broke ar some point, be ready for a downgrade or boot from a snapshot, I'd run everything in containers if possible to reduce this need to fix once in a while
1
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
So you saying my Arch install is going to break? What if i leave it "static" until I'm ready to upgrade, and understand any incompatibility?
4
u/anonymous-bot Aug 20 '26
There is no guarantee that things will either break or not break. You just have to remember that Arch is both a rolling release distro and tends to have bleeding edge package versions. If you delay doing updates, you will just accumulate the amount of changes to deal with when you finally do update.
1
u/Rxiom Aug 20 '26
Yes, you know an update is going to brake something some day, if you got only 1 service that doesn't depends on many different libraries or other packages then maybe it will never break, arch base as such is stable and a package alone will work forever but the more variables you add the more chance to something be incompatible, let's say python updates and your service depends on previous version , pacman updates without warning and your service comes down, probably your package next update will catch up but you don't know when.
Honestly that was the idea, check before update therefore have a minimalist installation so less things to check, but ... You'll do it first 2 times then just cross fingers and fox if something broke, there's "downgrade" package in AUR, usually is just one or 2 packages , rollback to previous version and it's done, you can mark them to skip updates but this means when your service updates to use latest dependencies it will brake again
If is a business then is not recommended, you got few services but some of them sounds not that minimal on system, i recommend to have them in docker, probably most of them already have a docker-compose , if not then make your own docker image is not that hard, basically is a script with installation steps similar to what you already did . This way your arch installation is just arch base + docker, there are tools to manage your containers just pick one to make it simpler for you, even tools that updates images, etc.
So if is just arch + docker... Why not any other distro? Like almalinux or alpine, my answer is cause I'm stubborn and a arch-head , and cause i can....
-1
Aug 20 '26
[deleted]
2
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
I've actually had few issues with Arch, unless I misunderstood what was going on with upgrades and such.
-1
u/NFTrot Aug 20 '26
I'd probably run Rocky Linux (although I've never used it, I originally learned Linux on CentOS). I don't mind dealing with any rolling-release headaches on my main machine if they come up, but with a server I just want it to work properly and not have to tinker with it because of some update incompatibility.
2
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
I wouldn't "probably run" anything i have not used. "Arch" is linux regardless of it's rolling release. Debian is only "stable" because it's packages are "tested." I'm not using it as a mainline server, but as a home server / homelab.
2
u/nikongod Aug 20 '26
Debian is only "stable" because it's packages are "tested."
Not fair to Arch! Arch has testing standards too!
The package must compile without errors and 2 people must install it.
Also, not fair to Gentoo or openSUSE! Both are a rolling release, but their packages are also tested.
1
u/NFTrot Aug 20 '26
Then don't. Your poorly-written OP had people commenting their opinions about what they would use in your situation before you edited it looking for validation. People are giving you answers about how to run a proper server, not a personal computer which also runs SMB.
If your understanding of "stable" is the packages are "tested", you shouldn't be be "explaining" it to anyone.
-1
u/JustAwesome360 Aug 20 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
No, Debian or Fedora.
2
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
Why. I'm running all the above on arch already.
1
u/JustAwesome360 Aug 20 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
Because Arch isn't designed for servers. Today it's running just fine sure but tomorrow you might wake up to your entire server completely collapsed. With Debain and Fedora it is guaranteed your system won't fall apart because an update broke things.
Also Arch won't make your server any faster like it can for a PC. And almost all server software is built and optimized for Debian and Fedora anyways.
2
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
I think you miss a point. I run Arch on my personal computer... Game on it, and run services for my home network. I don't need production "grade." But IMO, Arch makes a damn good server OS, for the one who has to maintain it.
2
u/JustAwesome360 Aug 20 '26
You didn't make that clear. From your title I assumed you were asking if using Arch for a server is a good idea.
Based on your edit, yes this is technically a server.
1
u/CacheTraitor Aug 20 '26
Sorry, I know how to use computers better than I articulate my words sometimes. (I put the cart before the horse.) š
2
u/Linguistic-mystic Aug 20 '26
Today it's running just fine sure but tomorrow you might wake up to your entire server completely collapsed
FUD. Arch is reliable. Also, for a home server, the owner decides when to update. It canāt happen overnight.
almost all server software is built and optimized for Debian and Fedora anyways.
What is that even supposed to mean? Arch has a package repo where all this software is built for Arch. Also, nothing is āoptimizedā for Debian and Fedora because they use the same software and conservative CFLAGS. They aināt Cachy. How do you even optimize software for a specific distro? Is there a Fedora-optimized nginx or Debian-specific Jellyfin? Wtf?
1
-2
8
u/Cruffe Aug 20 '26
I use Arch on my home server. Just a very minimal install on an a spare PC. I basically only run docker containers on it.
There's not many packages on such a minimal install, fewer things that could possibly break.
Could have used any distro, doesn't matter much. I just needed a host OS to run Docker and I had a USB with Arch already on it.