Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Alibaba Exam ACA-Developer Topic 8 Question 63 Discussion

Actual exam question for Alibaba's ACA-Developer exam
Question #: 63
Topic #: 8
[All ACA-Developer Questions]

When versioning is enabled for an OSS Bucket, previous versions of objects will be retained, using storage space and incurring additional costs. How can you save space and reduce costs, while retaining some of the benefits of object versioning?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Lezlie at Jun 29, 2024, 02:27 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ACA-Developer Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Antonio
1 years ago
Versioning is great, but it can get expensive. Gotta love that lifecycle management!
upvoted 0 times
Moira
12 months ago
B) Use the Function Compute Service to regularly check for and delete old versions of objects.
upvoted 0 times
...
Natalie
1 years ago
D) Use OSS's built in lifecycle management capabilities to move old versions of objects to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alyce
1 years ago
C) Use OSS's built in lifecycle management capabilities to automatically delete old versions of objects after a set time.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Arlene
1 years ago
I'd rather not have the Function Compute team snoop around my buckets, so C is my pick.
upvoted 0 times
Wade
11 months ago
That's a good point, it's important to find a balance between saving space and retaining important data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lili
12 months ago
In that case, we could use OSS's lifecycle management to move old versions to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashaunda
12 months ago
But what if we want to keep some old versions for backup purposes?
upvoted 0 times
...
Bev
12 months ago
I agree, using OSS's built-in lifecycle management to automatically delete old versions seems like the best option.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ernie
1 years ago
That's true, Chaya. It depends on the specific needs and requirements of the project.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chaya
1 years ago
But what about option D? Moving old versions to Archival Storage could also be a cost-effective solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellsworth
1 years ago
I agree with Ernie, using lifecycle management to save space and reduce costs makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zachary
1 years ago
Haha, option A? Yeah, right, that's like throwing away the whole purpose of versioning.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jerlene
1 years ago
Archival storage is the smart move, D for the win! Saves space and keeps the history.
upvoted 0 times
Jaime
1 years ago
I agree, it's important to find a balance between saving space and retaining important data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corinne
1 years ago
Using OSS's built-in lifecycle management capabilities sounds like a good solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefanie
1 years ago
Definitely, Archival storage is a smart move.
upvoted 0 times
...
Burma
1 years ago
D for the win! Saves space and keeps the history.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Percy
1 years ago
Option C is the way to go! It's a built-in feature, so no need to mess with any extra services.
upvoted 0 times
Truman
1 years ago
D) Use OSS's built in lifecycle management capabilities to move old versions of objects to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawn
1 years ago
Option C sounds like the most efficient solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ilene
1 years ago
C) Use OSS's built in lifecycle management capabilities to automatically delete old versions of objects after a set time.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ernie
1 years ago
I think option C is a good idea to automatically delete old versions of objects.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel