On Wed, 2025-11-19 at 09:07 -0500, Matthew Patton wrote: > > That is one hell of a wild and unsupported assumption.
Yeah, I too was going to challenge that statement that I was a "lonely" outlier in the community of LVM users that would want to be able to move a thinly-provisioned LV from one PV to another, just as non- thinly-provisioned LVs can be. > Practically nobody , even seasoned sysadmins would know of this > deficiency. Indeed, I was skeptical that this was commonly understood as well. Well by anyone who had not tried it as I did only to find it is not supported. It does suck to have to choose between feature sets that are both very useful. Cheers, b.
