Arch-based CachyOS is working on a new Server Edition aimed at NAS, workstations, and hosting providers, featuring hardened defaults and optimized packages.

Here is some news that both excited me and gave me pause. In its annual 2025 retrospective, published today, Arch-based CachyOS, widely popular among Linux gamers and heavily focused on performance optimization, reveals plans I did not expect: an expansion into the server space.

“In addition to our ongoing PGO and AutoFDO optimizations, we are developing a specialized ‘Server’ Edition for NAS, workstations, and server environments. We intend to provide a verified image that hosting providers can easily deploy for their customers. This edition will ship with a hardened configuration, pre-tuned settings, and performance-optimized packages for web servers, databases and more!”

  • Vorpal@programming.dev
    41·
    5 days ago

    I too run an Arch and am happy with it, and I would like to know why Cachy. The only reason I can see is having x86-64-v3 packages instead of baseline. That is nice, but on it’s own doesn’t feel worth the effort of switching over.

    Defaults don’t matter to me much, as I automate and manage my system config in git (using a tool I wrote myself: https://github.com/VorpalBlade/paketkoll/tree/main/crates/konfigkoll inspired by https://github.com/CyberShadow/aconfmgr). It makes it a breeze to set up a new computer as I want it.

    • wltr@discuss.tchncs.de
      12·
      5 days ago

      I don’t want to spill some memes worth Arch elitism here, but I just doubt Arch derivatives crowd knows what x86-64-v3 thing is. Truth be told, I barely understand that myself. So I guess the difference should lie somewhere else. My previous research showed that the crowd is afraid of no installer installer, but these days Arch has some kind of installer, doesn’t it?

      I’m just struggle to grasp what does it have, what those defaults are? A DE and whatnot? Is it just an opinionated Arch? Looks quite popular for everyone and their dog to have their own opinionated Arch this year, isn’t it?

      • Vorpal@programming.dev
        2·
        3 hours ago

        As far as I know they do a few things (but it is hard to find a comprehensive list), including build packages for newer microarchitectures such as the aforementioned x86-64-v3. The default on x86-64 Linux is still to build programs that work on the original AMD Athlon 64 from the early 2000s. That really doesn’t make sense any more, and v3 is a good default that still covers the last several years of CPUs.

        There are many interesting added instructions and for some programs it can make a large difference, but that will vary wildly from program to program. Phoronix has also done some benchmarks of Arch vs Cachy, and since Phoronix Test Suit mostly uses it’s own binaries, what that shows is the difference that the kernel, glibc and system tuning alone makes. And those results do look promising.

        I don’t want to spill some memes worth Arch elitism here, but I just doubt Arch derivatives crowd knows what x86-64-v3 thing is. Truth be told, I barely understand that myself.

        I think you just did show a lot of elitism and arrogance there. I expect software developers working on any distro to know about this, but not necessarily the users of said distros. (For me, knowing about low level optimisation is part of my dayjob.)

        Also, for Cachy in particular they do seem to have some decent developers. One of their devs is the guy who maintains the legacy nvidia drivers on AUR, which involves a fair bit of kernel programming to adapt to changes in new kernel releases (nvidia themselves no longer do so after the first year of drivers becoming legacy).

        • wltr@discuss.tchncs.de
          1·
          3 hours ago

          Thanks for the great reply! I’m sorry for the appearing of the elitism, I guess that’s rather the wording choice than a real attitude. Personally, I don’t feel like I’m very experienced, so there’s nowhere for the true elitism to stem from. I’m really interested in Arch based distros. But I don’t think I’m going to try them, purely because I’m happy with Arch. Hence, I’m asking others. It’s a curious case for me, theoretically. As long ago, I thought people go with Arch based distros purely because they couldn’t manage to install Arch. But that was quite easy, actually. For some reasons, I really disliked Manjaro, but I haven’t heard of it for a long time. Perhaps that’s my bubble.

          There’s some idiotic comments like some guy who literally wasted my time by having idiotic replies, again and again, so I managed to block them. So, thanks for a thoughtful explanation.

          I wonder what is the difference with these newer versions, as most of my hardware is Haswell era or even earlier. It works great with Arch + Sway. Or even Fedora with the default Gnome. As I understand it, you talk of the much newer hardware, like 5 years old.

      • rozodru@pie.andmc.caEnglish
        22·
        5 days ago

        heaven forbid you go read about it. You’re weird, man. Takes all of 5 seconds to web search the distro and find what makes it different.