Skip to Main Content
IBM System Storage Ideas Portal

This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM System Storage products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Not under consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Mar 10, 2016

GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

What we are looking for is a configuration based parameter what will
basically break out of the "transparency for the user" mode, and not
perform any further recalling, period, if|when the file system
occupancy is above a certain threshold (98%). We would not mind if
instead gpfs would issue a preemptive "disk full" error message to any user/app/job relying on those files to be recalled, so migration on
demand will have a chance to be performed. What we prefer is to swap precedence, ie, any migration requests would be executed ahead of any recalls, at least until a certain amount of free space on the file system has been cleared.

For a write or create operation ENOSPC would make some sense.
But if the file already exists and I'm just opening for read access I
would be very confused by ENOSPC. How should the system respond: "Sorry, I know about that file, I have it safely stored away in HSM, but it is not available right now. Try again later!"

EAGAIN or EBUSY might be the closest in ordinary language...
But EAGAIN is used when a system call is interrupted and can be retried right away...

I'm inclined to think EBUSY would be more appropriate.

Idea priority High