I’m refurbishing an old PC to work as a home server for several stuff. I’m looking for a lightweight distribution to install in it, but with a decent package repository. A small image size will be appreciated, as I have slow bandwidth too.

  • Apart from Debian, I guess Alpine. It’s quite popular in containers for its small size. Even Arch will be much bigger in that case because the packages are much less granular and install development libraries and headers for about everything.

  • Debian or Ubuntu Server (or something specific to servers purpose, like OMV, etc).

    … but ProxMox (a hypervisor, Debian based) doesn’t have much overhead & runs on old PCs pretty well. And with that, you can pretty much try any distro (as a full virtual machines, perhaps with dockers within it, or as a lightweight containers that are really resource efficient). Or separate containers for each purpose (for beginners, there are like TurnKey solutions to stuff like NAS, it takes literally a few minutes to set up).

    Backups (snapshots) are easy too, and a later migration to a better/next server is basically two clicks away.

      • To transfer image 1:1 from disk to VM?

        Im sure there is a way (a quick search will probably give you your answer fairly quickly) … or just try Clonezilla, that way you can also revert back. As per usual with OS I would advise make a clean install on a new machine & transfer the rest manually, … however I’m lazy and wound definitely try to image copypasta the disk.

        VMs as such aren’t really any different from regular machines, it’s just that you define virtual machine parts, well, virtually (like you can add disks, RAM, cores, etc as you wish).

  • Linux is quite lightweight. Pick a distro that doesn’t run a lot of stuff by default. OpenBSD only runs sshd exposed to the network, AFAIR. Debian probably does the same. But really, the lightness comes from what isn’t running. NixOS, fedora, rocky, alpine are all decent alternatives.

  • Probably Debian. It’s basically the most used distro, and therefore has many online resources.

    • Old software, but very stable.
    • No bloat, very clean.
    • No custom programs interfering with any configurations etc.
    • Support for many server software etc.

    If you want an even cleaner OS, where (nearly) everything is under your control and as lightweight as possible, Arch would be for you. There’s the bonus of the AUR, but the huge problem of newest, “unstable” software, though I’ve yet to experience any problem on testing repos, except for the Nvidia drivers. In general, Debian should be enough of lightweightiness and control.

  • I’d argue that beyond the distribution itself it’s a lot more about what you install that will make the difference. If you can basically stick to the console and connect via ssh you’ll have a lot more resources available, both bandwidth (assuming you were planning to see a remote desktop) needed but also disk, CPU and RAM. There are lightweight WM e.g ratpoison but IMHO a server should be headless.

    So… yes Debian but IMHO Debian without any desktop, just boot with sshd running, Ethernet cable plugged in and connect remotely.

    PS: I’d also check if a RPi could be sufficient. I’m running few RPi4s and RPi Zero with 100Go+ microSDs and that’s very small, silent and doesn’t consume much energy. I understand it’s appealing to upcycle old hardware but in the long run, e.g 1 year running 24/7 might not be worth it.

    • rPis for me aren’t an option as there’s no way to buy one here, first hand at least. And the electricity isn’t really an issue as I pay it by estimates.

      Also must say the server only purpose is to run long tasks without occupying my daily use PC. I don’t have Ethernet internet either, so I can only put it online sharing connection with my laptop or with a (future) wireless expansion.

  •  fraydabson   ( @fraydabson@sopuli.xyz ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I use arch.
    edit: lol while I am new to arch, I guess I kind of expected people to disagree with me. I was under the impression that stock arch is very lightweight? I know there used to be jokes about “I installed Arch” cause it’s supposed to be hard. But I installed Arch on my desktop and server recently, I did the manual install on my desktop and the guided install on my server. Both super straight forward. Plus Arch seems to have some of the best documentation across distros. I don’t know why it should not be suggested, unless I am missing something.

    • Most people want stability (low change) for servers. Arch is typically run where plentiful software updates are welcome. It’s not that you can’t/shouldn’t use Arch for servers, but it isn’t the most conventional suggestion.