On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:06 AM Laura Hild <[log in to unmask]> 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.

>