Are there still any currently-maintained 64-bit Linux Distributions that will install and run successfully under the "baseline" x86_64-v1 micro-architecture level, or do all active, currently-maintained 64-bit Distros require a CPU supporting at minimum the x86_64-v2 instruction set?
From a quick google search for you, there are still actively maintained 64-bit Linux distributions that support the baseline x86_64-v1 microarchitecture. While some distributions have moved to require x86_64-v2 or higher, others continue to maintain compatibility with older hardware.
For example, openSUSE discussed in 2023 moving its baseline to x86_64-v2 but I am not sure (did not confirm) this change has been implemented, maintaining support for x86_64-v1. (The Register) Similarly, Arch Linux targets x86-64 microprocessors, which include x86_64-v1, ensuring compatibility with a wide range of hardware. (Wikipedia)
However, it’s important to note as you suspect @Clovis_Sangrail , that some distributions, like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), have announced plans to deprecate support for x86_64-v1 and x86_64-v2 in future releases. (Red Hat Access)
In summary, while certain distributions are moving towards requiring newer microarchitectures, there appears to be several actively maintained 64-bit Linux distributions that support the x86_64-v1 baseline, allowing them to run on older hardware.
However, I did not confirm this, as I only did a quick search and some of the references might be dated. Please confirm yourself. Thanks.
1 Like
From my misadventures in trying to update older machines running Centos 7, I know that the current releases of RHEL8 (8.10) and RHEL9 (9.5) do not run on x86-64-v1 hardware, so neither do current Centos replacements like Almalinux. I'm still testing Rocky Linux, but so far it does not look good either.
Centos/Redhat is what my employer uses/used, so that's what I'm familiar with. But I'm getting the impression that most other major distros still build to baseline (v1) x86_64. The only other definite v2 I've read reports of is for OpenSuse Tumbleweed.
1 Like
I have to correct my earlier comment. I think that my inability to install RHEL 8.10 on my old (x86-64-v1) machine was due to corrupted USB drives. I have since been able to install Almalinux 8.10 and Rocky Linux 8.10 on my old machine. Alma & Rocky 9.5 both still fail, and the same USBs can successfully install on a newer machine.
I don't have time to try the actual RHEL 8.10 and RHEL 9.5 distributuins, but I assume that they will behave the same way..
I was also able to istall the current debian release (debian 12) on my old hardware.
My difficulties with bootable USB-drive creation seem to have come from using any blocking factor in the 'dd' command, for example the "bs=4M" in:
dd if=./Rocky-8.10-x86_64-dvd1.iso of=/dev/sdb status=progress conv=fsync bs=4M
The 4M or even 1M block size overriding the default 512-byte size makes the dd copy go much faster, but it typically hangs at the end and the resulting USB stick will not boot. I was able to create working bootable USBs on a couple different computers by leaving off the "bs=xM" option and waiting as much as an hour for the larger images to copy. The "rufus" executable on my WIn10 PC also created a working bootable USB, and also took a very long time.
1 Like