On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:06 AM Laura Hild <l...@jlab.org> wrote: > > > No! No. No LVM! Bad admin, no biscuit! > > [...] > > *Bad* admin. Where's my squirt bottle? > > Yeah, I wrote "if you're a slice-and-dicer" for a reason. One big root is a > fine option, but it's not the situation I was imagining where one is > concerned with shrinkability. I think having hard limits on the growth of > certain subtrees can be helpful, and sometimes different mount options. I'm > Kickstarting rather than imaging, so I don't have a problem including the > hostname in the name of the Volume Group. Everyone has different objectives > (and I'm skeptical lack of LVM would have adequately protected you from your > predecessors' and colleagues' :)).
Various options for various filesystems is considered a big deal CIS compliance. I consider it a completely destabilizing waste of time better spent elsewhere. Avoiding LVM and its tendency to use identical volume names in VM images is.... a problem in cloud or VM environments where you may wish to mount and access a previous snapshot of the same VM. Itt's much easier to cut sections off a long rope than try to tie a bunch of short pieces to make the rope you need, when trying to tie up loose ends. >
