Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

MDE Cc: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>, Marc A Kaplan <makap...@us.ibm.com> Date: 11.03.2016 01:15 Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority Hey Dominic Just submitted a new request:

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority Interesting perspective Mark. I'm inclined to think EBUSY would be more appropriate. Jaime Quoting Marc A Kaplan <makap...@us.ibm.com>: For a write or create operation ENOSPC would make some sense. But if t

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

gericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, >> HRB 243294 >> >> >> >> From: Jaime Pinto <pi...@scinet.utoronto.ca> >> To:Dominic Mueller-Wicke01/Germany/IBM@IBMDE >> Cc:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org >> Date:08.03.2016 21:38 >> Subjec

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

@us.ibm.com> Cc: Dominic Mueller-Wicke01/Germany/IBM@IBMDE Date: 09.03.2016 16:22 Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority Interesting perspective Mark. I'm inclined to think EBUSY would be more appropriate. Jaime Quoting Marc A Kaplan &l

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

Interesting perspective Mark. I'm inclined to think EBUSY would be more appropriate. Jaime Quoting Marc A Kaplan : 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

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

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

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

gt;> Wittkopp >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, >> HRB 243294 >> >> >> >> From: Jaime Pinto <pi...@scinet.utoronto.ca> >> To: Dominic Mueller-Wicke01/Germany/IBM@IBMDE >> Cc: gpf

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

iscuss@spectrumscale.org Date: 08.03.2016 21:38 Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority Thanks for the suggestions Dominic I remember playing around with premigrated files at the time, and that was not satisfactory. What we are l

[gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

.ca> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org> Date: 08.03.2016 17:36 Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority Sent by:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org I'm wondering whether the new version of the "Spectrum Sui

[gpfsug-discuss] GPFS+TSM+HSM: staging vs. migration priority

I'm wondering whether the new version of the "Spectrum Suite" will allow us set the priority of the HSM migration to be higher than staging. I ask this because back in 2011 when we were still using Tivoli HSM with GPFS, during mixed requests for migration and staging operations, we had