Skip to Main Content
IBM Power Ideas Portal

This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Power Systems products, including IBM i. 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 Future consideration
Workspace IBM i
Categories Save and Restore
Created by Guest
Created on Oct 18, 2021

Write correct device name in SAVLIB output file when using media definition with multiple devices

We use SAVLIB *ALLUSR DEV(*MEDDFN) MEDDFN(xxx) OUTPUT(*OUTFILE) in our weekly backup, where the media definition xxx contains two devices with 3 tapes each and specify a save format of *SERIAL, i.e. each library is saved to only one device.

This works fine - no problem here.

But the output file from the SAVLIB operation contains an incorrect value in the column SRODEV (save/restore devices)! All rows in the output file has the same value, which is the first device specified in the media definition - even though the library and object is saved to a tape in the second device.

The volume name in column SROVOL in the output file is correct - even when spanning multiple volumes - but the device value is wrong...

The problem has been verified on both IBM i 7.3 and 7.4.

Use Case:

If corrected, the value of SRODEV would show which device were used for writing the lib/object to tape in a parallel backup - currently it can not be trusted.

Idea priority Medium
  • Guest
    Dec 30, 2021

    IBM will use this request as input to planning but no commitment is made or implied. This request will be updated in the future if IBM implements it. IBM will use votes and comments from others in the community to help prioritize this request.

  • Guest
    Dec 16, 2021

    The CEAC has reviewed this requirement and recommends that IBM view this as a MEDIUM priority requirement that should be addressed.

    Background: The COMMON Europe Advisory Council (CEAC) members have a broad range of experience in working with small and medium-sized IBM i customers. CEAC has a crucial role in working with IBM i development to help assess the value and impact of individual RFEs on the broader IBM i community and has therefore reviewed your RFE.

    To find out how CEAC help to shape the future of IBM i, see CEAC @ and the article "The Five Hottest IBM i RFEs Of The Quarter" at

    Therese Eaton – CEAC Program Manager, IBM

  • Guest
    Dec 12, 2021

    I've added my vote to this based on IBM's solution, it sounds like a good way forward to me.

    Cheers Brad
    Steve Bradshaw
    IBM Champion, Member of CEAC, TD of
    and by day a Friendly Techie Bloke at

  • Guest
    Oct 25, 2021

    IBM needs more information to further assess your Request for Enhancement.

    IBM i Development reviewed this request and found the SRODEV field can contain up to 4 devices which is less than the maximum number of devices which can be used in a parallel save or restore operation. Development doesn't see any benefit in having a partial device list in the field (which is basically the behavior now). A comprehensive solution is to create a new expanded device field to support the maximum amount of devices possible. An outfile change has release boundary restrictions, and there are several higher priority needs ahead of this request, so it would likely be at least a few years before this proposed comprehensive solution could be delivered.

    IBM would like to know if this request is still desirable given this timeframe?