Talk:Hierarchical storage management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Request to add a reference to Moonwalk which is a HSM for Windows, NetWare, Linux. It's unique in that it has no databases or middleware with built-in Disaster Recovery. There are plenty of references to it via byteandswitch such as

Rudnuts 08:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge Tiered storage into Hierarchical storage management[edit]

HSM is a well-known term (together with ILM) and HSM article sufficiently describes technical aspects of a problem. Sure, tiered storage can be defined as a superset of HSM and several other minor cases, but I think it is pointless. --Kubanczyk 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiered Storage can be present for other reasons than HSM. Consider the ITIL Service Management topic of Service Level Agreements and Operational Level Agreements. Tiers can be presented as an option for storage without HSM tools moving data into or out of it, based on SLA and/or attributes such as price/performance. Thus, you could have a high performing, highly available tier, and a lower priced economy tier that may have different performance, availability and/or price attributes. A data center could offer both tiers, and an application could wholly utilize one or the other with no need for an HSM solution to migrate data. While the use of tiers can be significantly enhanced by HSM, they should remain separate topics. Architect Ed 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: Although I grant that Tiered Storage is very closely related to HSM, I don not think that merging both topics would be a good idea. Tiered storage gains its value from HSM, but HSM can be looked upon without much thought about hardware. Thus, I think this should be kept separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree: also can add the fact that a HSM is storage policies executed to automate the movement of files within Tiered Storage Rudnuts (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the tiered storage and HSM articles should be merged. The two are too conceptually close to be considered different. Public Menace (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: HSM (hierarchical storage management)is an applications and teired storage is a plan or concept. HSM applications are used to move binary large objects (BLOBs)for one tier type to another, usual from an online disk, to a nearline disk, tape or optical device. The HSM products are primarily used for data archive. While tiered storage is based on the needs of an application or content used by an application. Here you look at data access requirements, overall throughput, storage capacity, processing type, and access types. This can range from a highly transactional database to a long term offline archive. --PresArch 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlwatts (talkcontribs)

Agree.. Tiered Storage is little more than a stub. I'd say break it off later if it grows into something big. -- (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. TS is one way of doing HS, worthy of a paragraph in HS. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. HSM and TS in current implementations are sufficiently different that their descriptions should not be merged. They may be cross-referenced to show the differences, but they are not similar enough to be merged. In addition to the points made above, here are a few other illustrations of differences. HSM is typically file oriented. TS is Logical Unit oriented. HSM relies heavily on automatic movement. TS is frequently totally manually managed, although it can have an automatic movement involved. HSM typically moves data to tape. TS does not involve tape. TS typically involves active application access. HSM is more targeted as a deep store of infrequently accessed data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think tiered storage has enough importance not to be deleated but it should be merged. JMAN1156

  • They are not the same alas. From Ulf Troppens; Rainer Erkens; Wolfgang Mueller-Friedt; Rainer Wolafka, Nils Haustein (2011). Storage Networks Explained: Basics and Application of Fibre Channel SAN, NAS, iSCSI, InfiniBand and FCoE (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 309. ISBN 978-1-119-96543-5.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help): "Due to the long life span of archive data, special importance is given to the cost-efficient storage and management of the data. One important technique for this is Hierarchical Storage Management (HSM), which comprises multiple storage levels (tiered storage) and capabilities for automated data migration between these tiers." So automated storage tiering is more or less equivalent to HSM, but not just tiering. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Open Source Systems for HSM?[edit]

Does anyone know an open HSM solution? Rkarlsba (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Hierarchical Storage Manager --KenBailey (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Project looks rather dead. Anyone that knows another? Rkarlsba (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
How about this one? OpenArchive — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Automated tiered storage[edit]

It looks like some spam drones have put a new article on the same old. Should be merged here, although at first glance there's little useful in it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I have to add that this article is pretty much just crappy as that one though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably the best argument for merging is this. That some vendors might disagree [1] can be handled in the article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It does seem though that Hu is right in that HSM is understood by several authors [2][3][4][5][6] as the specific IBM-style implementation, which precluded direct access to lower levels of storage without migrating the data back up the hierarchy first, which is no longer the case with flash/hdd hierarchies like Apple's Fusion Drive. So probably a merged article is best titled storage tiering (or tiered storage) and then it should explain the more (or less) generic way in which HSM is seen as a synonym for ATS/AST. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

HSM vs ILM[edit]

Dropping a note here for the difference, according to one book [7]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

DFSMS redirect[edit]

The redirect from DFSMS to HSM is only partially correct. DFSMS stands for Data Facility System Managed Storage, and HSM (DFSMShsm) is one of the functions of DFSMS. DFSMS should be its own page which then links to HSM and other pages. DaveShack (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Too many details about history and IBM[edit]

They provide no real information, but kill readers patience reading all of these boring historic facts that have no use today. Ushkin N (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)