LVM seems like overkill, there, i said it. In fact, i struggle to find the place for LVM in Fedora on a daily basis.
LVM is great for growing and shrinking multiple disks and partitions in various directions on servers. LVM affords an administrator the opportunity to provide a robust testbed by allowing several types of filesystems to reside on one system at a time, even it its just on one disk. heck, it even gives a user the chance to responsibly back up her data with an image to another partition, although RSync arguably does a nicer job.
its questionable for the default user to have, by default an LVM layout. Although simplified through one click in the installer, the LVM adds overhead to systems with typically only 1 or 2 disks available. LVM wont solve your problems in the default configuration "automatically" should you lose a drive either. not even if their striped. in fact, LVM may be slower than the previous filesystem a user was accustomed to. as we all know ,an operating systems level of advancement among its peers and predecessors is directly proportional to its speed
Dont complain without a solution, right?
Perhaps this can all be avoided through the use of a more intelligent partitioning system. Fedora can afford single disk/smaller disk users the best perfomance by offering REISER, EXT2, UFS, etc...in the non LVM format. If detected multiple drives, Fedora can present the option to install the LVM system or even a software RAID should prerequisites (at least n drives at n type) exist.
now heres another question: Where do you as a fedora user see the place of LVM? should high end servers be employing it? they already have RAID and SAN to rely on! should power users have it to group disks? that could be achieved through software RAID anyhow...Is LVM just a proof of concept alltogether?