2016-06-27 11:46 PM
Hope you can help me in this case...
The Partner got a question, for which I couldn’t find any usable information.
ONTap API (v 1.31 cluster):
To the partner, these two values would be sort of in sync, as the lifetime of a ssd would also be related to the number of spares available.
So he had a look at it’s AFF systems
and see the following
Just a snippet. Some have higher spares used. But what the partner find it weird the wear percent . which is 0, but the spares used percent is 7 or more (on others) percent. Is this expected? Which number is leading? It seems also strange that the SSDs seem to use the spares at a consistent rate, as in, consistent usage across all the SSDs. Is this also expected behavior?
Any suggestion is welcome!
2016-06-28 06:28 AM
percent-rated-life-used represents how much of the life span of the drive, as estimated by the manufacturer, has passed. For example, if MTBF for the drive is 2 million power on hours, but only 100,000 hours have passed it would show as 5%. This is independent of the number of spare blocks used/free.
Also note that percent-rated-life-used can be greater than 100. It is based on the estimated lifespan of the drive from the manufacturer...if the drive lives longer than the estimate it would have a value > 100, but that is not a predictor/indicator of failure.
percent-rated-life-used is a purely informational field, whereas percent-spares-used is important monitoring information since running out of spare blocks would cause the disk to be failed.
Hope that helps.