On Friday 24 of August 2018 19:23:09 Mike Bird wrote:
> On Fri August 24 2018 09:09:14 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > The consensus is that LVM still isn't quite ready for prime time, and
> > with big drives, no longer needed.
>
> That is an opinion and also the consensus as of 15-20 years ago.
>
> It is not the current consensus.
>
> We have used LVM since 2004 or before.  It would take too long
> for me to determine the exact start date and the total number
> of systems upon which we have deployed LVM.  I can however quote
> you from memory the number of problems we have experienced: zero.
>
> For simple systems it is generally easiest to use only a boot and
> an "everything else" partition with neither LVM nor complex
> partitioning.
>
> For more complex systems LVM is a valuable and robust tool and
> much more flexible than partitioning.  Within a single complex
> system we may use multiple volume groups with different PE sizes,
> different RAID levels, different block/inode ratios, different
> reserved block percentages, different mount attributes (e.g.
> noexec), and different user quotas.  We currently use ext3
> exclusively but others may also use different filesystem types
> in different logical volumes as appropriate.
>
> FWIW we have many times found LVM helpful when migrating from
> failing hard drives to new drives - just add the new physical
> volumes, remove the old physical volumes, and everything is
> migrated by magic.
>
> --Mike
>

Yes, just under that I would sign!

For me too, LVM is an indispensable tool. In addition to managing 
filesystems, in my case, LVM is also an indispensable tool for virtual 
machine drives (of course I use Debian with Linux KVM as hypervisor).

In the years when I use it, I remember only one problem.
But that's a long past.

Cheers
-- 
Sl�vek