Anyone here using or working for a company that uses Archlinux in production servers?

Anyone here using or working for a company that uses Archlinux in production servers?

Actually I use archlinux since 4 years now personally and never had one real issue.
The idea of having up to date important software like Postgres and Redis is really tempting while you don't have to upgrade the whole distro and fear for something to break. Since I have the database on the same server, the fear is much higher when doing a major upgrade every 6 or 12 months.

Other urls found in this thread:

debian.org/devel/testing
wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/What's_new_in_PostgreSQL_9.0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I -Syuu a family pc once every year

I don't shit myself when doing so

There does not exist a single company in the world that uses arch linux for anything productive. It's going to be debian most likely.

what if I just want to use up-to-date packages, like Postgres 9.5 or 9.6, Redis > 3.0, Python 3.5. Debian and CentOS are too out of date to say the least.

No body uses arch for anything productive.

If you like to take a few risks, debian testing has up to date packages. Not as stable as debian stable, but more up to date.
debian.org/devel/testing

arch spergs pretending that "normal maintence" and "pre-upgrade process" is reading mailing lists for hours and choosing packages to not upgrade... only because others tried it blind first and reported back with miserable failures.

done debian and ubuntu 4-6 releases over years and also never failed.

>b-but I tried upgrading debian to the next release after I fucked up apt, all my confs, because i'm a ricer shitlet and had to change it all, and it broke! whilst arch with hours and hours of pre-upgrade checks which don't count cause I'm making this job shit up didn't!

That's by design, older software has had more time for bugs to be found and is therefore less prone to 0 day vulnerabilities.

I remember when I used arch for a few months. System broke after they decided to randomly change where the system libs would be located. Had to reinstall and then updated the system. Happened again shortly after and I said fuck no.

The car wash I work for uses Arch. It really helps count how many cars are processed. We did 38 the other day.

Thanks everybody, my major concern here is just I fear that I fuck the whole system on a major upgrade (new/deleted conf options, shit show up due to differences between major versions, etc..), especially that the database (which accepts user data) itself is on the same machine, the second issue is that I already use up-to-date packages of Postgres and Redis on my dev machine, I fear there are irregularities when I move the entire system to a Debian or Ubuntu production machine

Using Arch Linux for production servers is a terrible idea.

For servers you want to use stable long term support distros that the only updates they get are security ones like debian or Ubuntu Server, or at the very minimum a distro that's made to make version upgrades a easy process like Fedora Server.

If you want to use the latest version of a software you can just compile it yourself or use a ppa or rpm that does that for you. In servers this is not a big problem because you usually now exactly what programs you want to keep the latest.

Every company I've worked for has used RHEL or CentOS. Almost everyone I've ever interviewed has had the majority of their experience in RHEL or CentOS. This tells me that most major companies are using RHEL or CentOS.

If you actually need newer software than is provided by the default repos, just add third party repos or build your own RPMs.

if I compile it or get it compiled form an unofficial repo, can I be sure that it will go well with libraries packages which are obtained officially?

I mean that libraires may support older official packages and fuck up my custom packages

Just out of total curiosity, what is it in particular about a package that is too out of date for you? as in what feature in question is it missing. See this "out of date" meme repeated ever so much but can't seem to ever see what feature was missing

like I said, most importantly Postgres (I use v9.5), and Redis 3.2, and Python 3.5

No, you can't be sure. But you can't exactly be sure of it with the default repos either. That's what testing is for. You don't upgrade unless there's a compelling need to do so. Remember we're talking about enterprise production environments here.

>software name and version
>particular function that is missing

for example
wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/What's_new_in_PostgreSQL_9.0

Used to be a debianfag. Switched to Arch to see what the fuss was about. I've had WAY, WAY, less problems with Arch than with "rock-solid" debian.

production or personal?

Going to be the latter since the former paired with arch usually involves being terminated

Personal.... I know it's not the point of this thread, but I'd feel better about using Arch for production if it was small-scale where I'd have easy access "just-in-case." I understand why debian is the go-to, but I've had to trouble-shoot debian far more than Arch, so if I was deploying something of a limited scope I'd be inclined to run with Arch.

If you compile it yourself it will be linked to the libraries in your system... that's how compiling works.

For unofficial repos this could be a trouble like you say, for example PPAs will install their dependencies from the repos, if any of the PPAs you install in your system includes a dependency from another PPAs, it will use that one instead.

However this is rare, usually common dependencies are never provided by unofficial repos for this exact reason, so you are mostly safe.

yes I mean actually dynamic libraries linked at run-time. That's why I am tempted to use Arch, just one update snapshot to all packages (which will be only my required packages and nothing more) instead of figuring out how to make packages with diffrent versions work together even on an old kernel (which can be another shit waiting for me in runtime) like in Debian or CentOS

Desktop Linux and Server Linux are worlds apart.

In the desktop a bleeding edge distro like Arch makes a lot of sense, because we deal with buggy WM, X11, Wayland migration and input devices. Faster updates means less bugs and more features.

On Servers we see the exact opposite, the software is insanely stable, they been tested to death an are sponsored by big corporations, because it's made to power the world's most demanding applications. In these cases staying in the bleeding edge is more trouble than anything.

Yeah, because if you're clever the home drive is parted and you just reinstall if you shit the bed. This is compared to someone who is running a database.

Hell no. In fact, I'd be very confused if I ever saw Arch in a production environment. Not because Arch is confusing, but because it takes a reasonable amount of Linux knowledge to use, and I wouldn't expect someone with the requisite knowledge to do something so stupid.

You don't want bleeding edge in enterprise environments. You want well-tested and stable software with rock solid uptime. I've got 25,000 people at work using the infrastructure I'm responsible for. Every second something is down is a second they can't do what they need to do. And its hard enough planning maintenance windows without combing mailing lists to see if the Arch devs did something stupid or if there's a known issue.

Then you use third party repos or roll your own packages. You don't need to make ALL packages on your OS unstable because you need four packages to be mainline.

Not to mention distros like Arch are simply not tested as much on enterprise hardware. There's a very good chance that the kernel wasn't built with modules for say your tape drive.

I really don't know what the problem with arch is. I do pacman -Syu nearly everday and my stsyem hasn't tanked once. Most the problems were from GTK and i3 rendering problems. That somehow kinda resolved on its own GTK applications now render properly and don't ghost AS much.

Funnily enough teh only major problem was me writing over my partition with dd command actually typo and using my partiton rather then hd partition. reinstalled arch unpacked my home tar files and had it kinda back.

Main problem with ARch is i somewhow got some viruses It hink but once again my fault.

I don't follow you user, I don't see what an older version of the kernel plays on all of this.

Also in linux when you compile from source it will statically link the libraries at compile time, unless you specify it otherwise.

You could use different version of a library and compile each program to a different one (dynamicly or staticly), but then you would need a package manager that supports multiple version of the same program installed.

My argument against using Arch on servers is that you don't want to introduce the pitfalls from a bleeding edge distro into a production server, updating a production server is a careful operation (it's never a "just update with one line" operation), you have to review the changelogs and see what's going on, that's why sysadmin is a job. And that's why you should use a distribution focused on safe stable updates.

They're probably better about it now that there aren't as many massive changes happening. Arch did not handle things like the /lib ->/usr/lib symlink or systems migration very well. Historically they have occasionally massively fucked things up if you upgrade at the wrong time. They usually fix their mistakes so you might jot have noticed if you weren't one of the unlucky ones to get the bullet when playing the Russian roulette that is pacman -Syu

>bleeding edge in enterprise environments
Kek. I'll never understand trap fags who live in mommys basement who never can understand all the latest tech isn't necessary for data input, office apps, spreadsheets, P.O.S. You can tell the nerds from the pros.

Ubuntu is very common these days as well because of all the AWS and cloud shit.

Ubuntu server is a bloatshit for me, I just need a kernel, postgres, redis, python, nginx and their dependencies

For new companies I would say it's 50/50 Ubuntu and Centos, RHEL comes third.

>For new companies I would say it's 50/50 Ubuntu and Centos, RHEL comes third.
Citation needed.

Aptitude skills are easier to find these days than people that know how to deal with RPM and redhat

Yeah but I'm more concerned about maintainability than infrastructure. We've got redundant UCSes with something like 2TB of RAM each and a shitload of CPUs. I roll out Ubuntu because some coworkers are dumb and have no business managing a VM but they somehow got the job 10 years ago and can't be fired so may as well try to avoid issues.

I'm currently a NEET and have applied to about 50 positions in the past 6 months.

>have applied to about 50 positions in the past 6 months.
So in other words, you suck at what you do? 50 job positions and no takers. Ok. BTW. Correct order is RHEL. Maybe Cent, which is redhat. Unbuntu? lol. Never heard of an Ubuntu certification. Where you live nigger, cameroon?

There is no Ubuntu certification. That does not mean it isn't highly used as a server OS. Also, RHEL is not even close to the most common distro on servers. The vast majority of people don't want to pay for that type of support, so they just use CentOS, which nobody calls "Cent" by the way.

because i rarely have reason to shit the bed

No, for new companies and startups its Ubuntu > Centos > RHEL.

You are probably not familiar with job hunting in tech if you think 6 months looking is extreme. Finding a proper job is hard, if I wanted to I could land a modest pay job as a webdev tomorrow, but it's not what I'm looking for.

how do you know if you're competent enough for a job in tech. Like what if htye hire you then the first day on the job you're a shit that can't solve the problem and they fire you?

Tech jobs seems mysterious. Like it seems it'd be very pressuring whether sysadmin, programming, or advisor or something like what if they say 'this server is messing up, or it's being attacked by a fucking massive botnet, or what have yyou' and you litearlly don't know how to fix it and a shit they fire you. Or in programming 'polymorphism chain of bladda bla bla and abstract there one million lines of code' like what if you have no idea?

>You are probably not familiar with job hunting in tech if you think 6 months looking is extreme
No, because I have talent and have been employed for 20 + years. Good luck. I just like getting on /g to fuck with you kiddies.

Says no professional ever.

What you fear is pretty much a typical day at any level or job. My boss who is very talented to create a business on the other hand couldn't find his way around a computer, with a fucking map. He drives me nuts with requests that a child could solve. And don't get me started on CAD software or "engineers". Christ these people are retarded.

I'm not at work. I have no decorum to maintain in order to impress your punk ass.

I work for the Trump Organization and we all ran Arch Linux until Barron visited our offices, screenfetched one of the accountant's computers and literally projectile vomited in his face when he saw the Arch logo

Barron stormed out of the room, and returned with an easter basket full of thumb drives. He looked at us and nodded one time. We all lined up and grabbed one thumb drive each. In my office, there were 14 people working. I was the only one who kept my job that day, because I was the only one who was able to install Gentoo.

Since that day, my office's productivity has gone up 3000 percent, and we are winning big league. Trump is on his way to become the President of the United States, and when that happens I guarantee you that within 100 days every government computer will be running Gentoo, not pleb shit like Windows and Arch Linux

>Anyone here using or working for a company that uses Archlinux in production servers?

I doubt any company that does this lasts for very long.

All that jelly and no toast.

Interesting how nobody mentions SLES. In germany its quite popular for linux servers.

Use a stable base like Debian or CentOS and run your services in Docker containers. Arch doesn't support partial upgrades so it's a real bad fit for server use.

t. arch user on desktop/laptop

There does not exist a single company in the world that uses debian linux for anything productive. It's going to be slackware most likely.

kek

RHEL* or Ubuntu or even SUSE. Debian is a NEET meme

when I was at University of California at Davis, they had us SSH into their math department's Debian servers

he doesn't have to answer your autistic question you fucking faggot

why is debian a NEET meme? and wtf does meme even mean?? i really dont know

Is meme even in any non urban dictionary?

You can run the newest services with docker. It is not that hard.

no, i just dont understand how meme applies in that context

Arch is a minimal OS with Linux firmware, commands such as 'cd', 'ls', a package manager and a wrapper (pacstrap); a "base" package group (pacstrap /mnt base), and bleeding-edge packages for a (somehow inconsistent and prone-to-breaking) always updated OS.

Basically, an Archlinux install is a Linux firmware, bare commands, a package manager and up-to-date programs.

The productivity greatly relies on the software being installed. As an install, it also relies on the intelligence of its user or managers: do you imply that Archlinux users are not smart enough to do anything productive?

Assuming that were true, stating Archlinux users aren't smart enough to do anything productive wouldn't be kind. Therefore, would it be useful?

1. Archlinux productivity relies on cross-platform software and on its users' intelligence.
2. Stating that, unlike other OS, it isn't used for anything productive seems to rely on its specific users' intelligence.
3. Stating that isn't kind or useful. It cannot be proven true as well and seems therefore to have no interest for the people you wrote this for.

arch is not a minimalist distribution

you are also a giant homo

Go to any sysadmin event. You are gonna see red hat, canonical and suse being represented. Companies like buying support contracts.

I never said it was a minimalist distribution, I only roughly listed the content of its minimal installation iso.

Also:
>find a flaw.
"you are also a giant homo"
k

>minimal OS
comes with systemd.

>Anyone here using or working for a company that uses Archlinux in production servers?
Half most of the meme issues with Arch are tied to the graphical userspace. No GUI, no problem. On a server this isn't going to be an issue. You'd be amazed how stable Arch is as a server. I've seen lot's of developers recommend it for numerous reasons.Gentoo, as well.

>minimal installation iso
>797.0 MB

ok

yep
"muh updated software" is a complete meme

I'd take even one example from anyone else as well, reason why I asked is cause we all know there is no reason, it's just a meme.

>Gentoo, as well.

Gentoo does have a stable branch you can pull from instead of -current.

More than likely, this is true.

Arch is a great OS in my opinion, but probably too niche/hobbyist for any serious business to use.

This is also a possibility though. You could install Arch at a business, and just upgrade once a year or something. With the home partition kept separate, all their data would be safe if the upgrade fucked up, so you could just reinstall and mount the home partition.

Of course, if you're barely ever going to upgrade, what's the point of using Arch? One of the main reasons to use Arch is the rolling-release model. Which is great for me, but probably not best suited for a business. Debian for sure.

>You could install Arch at a business, and just upgrade once a year or something.

this is an absurd idea for running an enterprise server

here's a list of distros you should consider if you're ever in the position where you have any control over enterprise deployment of linux: centos, suse, and debian (in that order). RHEL is always an option but cost is prohibitive.

>797 mb just for a basic bootstrap + cli interface
>lightweight
>ubuntu server 667 with a text based gui installer and a lot of server packages
>noobuntu so bloated
cant make this shit up.

I know.
Server stuff doesn't get messed with in the same ways desktop things do, so in theory, most any net-install Linux should work just fine. The changes you see to something like OpenSSH in Arch/Gentoo, are likely to be made in stodgy old Debian too, because it's usually a security update rather than a feature update or whatever.

b-but muh pacman

I know, it's my favorite package manager. But consider thisAre you sure you would want to entrust an entire enterprise server to an OS that's maintained by unpaid volunteers, with no real customer support or assurance?

Sup Forums has truly ruined the logo for me, everytime I look at it I see the fat guy

According to some user, it would be because Canonical make the distinction between stable and dev packages, while the Arch devs don't.

The main concept of Ubuntu is about giving every useful package OOTB. So is Ubuntu Studio: basically Ubuntu with creative software. There is nothing wrong with it, and I'm happy it serves users.

I'm more concerned about its sociological implications (bringing distinction into Linux desktop) and the fact snappy is made for selling software (though I trust Canonical devs in their middle-term and long-term vision).

>but probably too niche/hobbyist for any serious business to use.
I guess it depends on how you're using the server, but I don't see how maintaining a server, differs from one distro to the next. It's all low level things. I've experienced zero differences in maintenance between Arch and Ubuntu servers, it's almost pointless to try and differentiate them when you are running such stripped down systems. I'm certainly no expert though...

splitting -dev is an debian tradition, and ubuntu follows it because it would make no sense to sew together packages that have been once split.
Especially if the splitting allows user to save space once something is compiled.
There would really be nothing wrong with snaps being used for selling software if it actually made it easier to compile single packages with static dependencies included that allow compatibility across many distributions.
It may lay of some work for developers/companies who would like to support Linux with big projects (eg. adobe, autodesk, etc.) since they wont have to write their own .run installers (which i guess is the way for most software), or provide multiple repositories for different distributions.
All big linux distros want something like this - look how the adoption of redhats appimage makes it easy to test the newest build of Krita.
Sure free software is good , but you cannot expect some really big companies to give their pricey applications for free to users or switch the license to GPL suddenly.

tl;dr splitting -dev is normal ,and something like snaps/appimages and an easy way of selling software for linux is required if anyone wants to make linux desktop/workstations happen for a broad userbase.

seen this before where arch fags admit upgrading arch is so bad that your solution is to turn arch into debian by just waiting a year (two ubuntu releases) before updating it, then not having "muh rolling release" and "updated software" which you were so desperate to get yet can't explain why you need in the first place.

Instead of trying to turn it into debian or ubuntu, you could also just use them, or any other distro, that solved these problems in 2003.

if this doesn't show that arch fags have never been at any business, you may want to consider joining a desktop thread instead. I wonder how many millions of dollars the whole world wastes per day via businesses hiring some "linux desktop expert anime pro" where the uptime dips below half a week