These tags don't seem that different. has a tag wiki, whereas does not, leading me to use for my recent LVM2 question. Is there any difference between these, or should one go away? Possibly we could have an tag for anyone who's still using the old version?

  • 2
    The lvm and lv2 tags have now been merged and lvm2 is a synonym of lvm.
    – terdon Mod
    Jun 30, 2017 at 9:10

2 Answers 2


I don't recall seeing a question about LVM1 on this site. It was already obsolete by the time this site started. So for all intents and purposes and are currently equivalent.

I favor merging them, and making the main tag. (Only moderators can do this.)

If an incompatible LVM3 comes along, we can start using for it. Then make the main tag in the / pair and remove the synonym.

Which reminds me, is a mess. We have plenty of questions about Grub 1, but Grub 2 questions have also been tagged , especially as Grub 1 is now obsolete.

  • 1
    Even though grub 1 is obsolete, it will be in production use for a while longer since RHEL5 uses it.
    – jordanm
    Sep 23, 2013 at 22:50
  • 4
    Just rename everything to grub, the distinction isn't that useful and couldn't be made unambiguously with the existing two tags.
    – Gabriel
    Sep 24, 2013 at 16:08
  • On the issue of grub, couldn't grub just be re-purposed for grub2 and a grub1 tag created for the RHEL-based distros? If the feeling is that grub1 shouldn't be expected to be what people are going for as things progress. I think the distinction is very useful since there are important differences between the two.
    – Bratchley
    Sep 24, 2013 at 17:01
  • 1
    @Joel I don't find the split useful for subscription/highlighting purposes, and I wouldn't trust the version if the asker doesn't put it in plain text.
    – Gabriel
    Sep 24, 2013 at 18:14
  • If lvm3 arrives, wouldn't lvm and lvm3 need to be synonyms? I'm not sure what one would do in this case. Can you spell it out a bit more? Jun 30, 2017 at 9:07

Just my two cents:

It might create noise, but having lvm in the general neighborhood of lvm2 doesn't really mess things up. There's ambiguity but I don't think it's going to make or break any assumptions people could reasonably be expected to make about the question.

If there does need to be a change, from what I can see there are two possibly legitimate uses of the tag:

1) As a reference to LVM1 as Gilles mentioned. It might be worthwhile to maintain the distinction as someone may have a question about the origins of the current LVM design and referencing a previous iteration might be a good reference point. If LVM2 ever gets marginalized in the enterprise by newer technologies, that would marginalize LVM1 to the point where it's so corner case as to be make this desire moot.


2) This is pretty close to how it is now, and I'd prefer it this way: It also may be worthwhile to reference "Logical Volume Management" as a whole, which (reading the description) seems like it basically was intended to be and it just wasn't made explicit. This is useful since "LVM" is a pretty broad topic, and providing a catch-all tag for anything under that particular tent may help people attract interested eyeballs to their question. For example, clvm could have its own tag as does lvm2. If I'm having an issue with clustered LVM, though, lvm2 feels like the wrong tag to put onto it since my problem isn't related to the particular version of LVM I'm running (except insofar as LVM2 is the only one that supports clustering, which isn't definitional identity since any forthcoming LVM3 would likely have that functionality as well). There's a similar case with HA-LVM.

Also, having a catch-all tag also helps for questions that are likely going to be relevant to all LVM incarnations (such as metadata recovery). Having general questions that are likely to be applicable to people new to the over-all paradigm share a common tag is also useful. For example, if someone is just unfamiliar with the concepts of volume group/physical volume, snapshots, etc.

Almost all my LVM2-related posts are tagged as lvm for this reason, I only use lvm2 if I'm in the mood to be super specific. People are going to assume lvm2 and even if the two were on parity, the onus should be on the asker to clear up ambiguity whether it's this or some other part of their question.

Whichever is decided (assuming I'm not overlooking a third option) updating the description to make it explicit is probably still desirable.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .