arch (or any rolling release) on a home server doesn't sound like a good idea?
if you actually run updates regularly (which you should anyways) it's fine. I did it for years until I switched to NixOS.
yeah, this was my main annoyance with it, i don't log into my server for months at a time so i wanted something without constant updates but other than that it was fine.
I know at least one other person who runs Arch on all their servers, they do an update monthly unless there's some critical CVE that needs to be addressed ASAP. The sibling comment says 1 year, but I can't honestly suggest going that long for any distro. I've had Ubuntu LTS break very, very badly because of a missed patch in GRUB when updating over too long of a timescale (somewhere around a year, maybe a bit less)
I update one of my servers once a year or even longer, and it’s still doing fine with Arch.
Once you try a rolling-release distro you realize it's actually a very good idea
It's not though, few server usecases allow/require your environment to change every day.
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a lot more stable than ArchLinux for that kind of stuff though. It stages updates in tested snapshots. ArchLinux updates just error if you time them right.
Anecdotal, but I never had an Arch install fail after updating (maybe the one time my EFI partition was full, but not specific to Arch). While I have a laptop running OpenSUSE Tumbleweed that failed to start after the third update I did on it.
Pacman has always been kind to me. Portage, on the other hand, crippled my beloved X60 after a full system upgrade even though I was only a few weeks behind. I don't recall the precise issue but if memory serves it was some sort of circular version dependency that I was unable to resolve. I was a 19-year-old l00nix nublet so I'm sure it was my fault but I've never had so much trouble with a distro package manager as I did with Gentoo's.