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?
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.
If this post resolved your issue, please help others by selecting ACCEPT AS SOLUTION or adding a KUDO.