I sort of understand the purpose of LVM, but I guess it can cause issues when cloning and using that clone elsewhere. I have one LMDE installation with and one without LVM. The one on LVM failed to boot after cloning on the external ssd, from that ssd in the laptop where another LMDE resides (not on LVM). I consulted AI, whether the LVM was the issue, because other clones from that laptop booted perfectly on that laptop (checked the root via lsblk).
What is your thought about installation with the LVM (logical volume management)? Yay or Nay?
I am going to overwrite this LVM LMDE with Fedora and see what it is about (had a brief play on the live iso last night), but I might go back to LMDE if not happy. Or maybe Zorin. Not sure yet. October is coming close.
If I clone LMDE made on LVM on the external drive and then clone it back, will it work as before?
Whilst I can't say what tool you used for cloning, in case it was an independent tool, I guess it's worth noting (but it may be redundant here) that lvm actually has its own snapshot facility which may be able to be used to serve the cloning function that you're interested in as opposed to using an independent cloning tool, in case you hadn't used snapshots.
In general lvm is useful if one plans on resizing or adjusting partitions. It has the ability to manage multiple disks and combine them into a single logical volume, like partitions that stretch over separate disks. It's very useful for servers which can benefit from altering volume sizes as the demands on them change over time.
If, on the other hand, one's system is expected to remain relatively stable in terms of partitions and disks, lvm has little to offer, but rather has the disadvantage of that extra layer of software between the disk and the filesystem, added unnecessary complexity and a slightly greater load on performance.
It depends on what one's computing needs are of course which a user needs to make a judgement about. For example, on my main machine here with a single nvme disk of 500G, it's partitioned minimally with an efi partition of 500M, swap of 8G, and the rest one large partition for root which contains home and everything else. There is specifically no separate root and home partitions because that would limit the size of the root partition more than necessary. So, in order not to have a relative limit on the amount of system software that could be installed in the future which goes to a root partition, a smaller limiting root partition was avoided.
In the past I've estimated a root partition to be 20G or 30G, but discovered that it was filling too quickly with the system software I was installing. Lvm may have helped in that circumstance, but its other aspects were unattractive, and the more convenient solution in those cases here was to create fewer partitions. Adding an extra disk to the system, when it occurred, was by a simple mount.
In the olden days some systems had lots of partitions like /usr, /bin, /var, /home because each partition was actually a separate disk since disks were small in size. Today's hardware has made that approach largely obsolete but lvm can replicate it with great flexibility if needed for reasons other than those of ancient systems.
All in all, I guess it's a matter of one assessing one's own computer needs to go one way or the other. Lvm has flexibility compared to standard partitions, but comes with small costs which a user may or may not be interested in paying.
