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
10 months ago
Versioning is great, but it can get expensive. Gotta love that lifecycle management!
upvoted 0 times
Moira
9 months ago
B) Use the Function Compute Service to regularly check for and delete old versions of objects.
upvoted 0 times
...
Natalie
10 months ago
D) Use OSS's built in lifecycle management capabilities to move old versions of objects to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alyce
10 months 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
10 months ago
I'd rather not have the Function Compute team snoop around my buckets, so C is my pick.
upvoted 0 times
Wade
9 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
9 months ago
In that case, we could use OSS's lifecycle management to move old versions to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashaunda
9 months ago
But what if we want to keep some old versions for backup purposes?
upvoted 0 times
...
Bev
9 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
10 months ago
That's true, Chaya. It depends on the specific needs and requirements of the project.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chaya
10 months ago
But what about option D? Moving old versions to Archival Storage could also be a cost-effective solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellsworth
11 months ago
I agree with Ernie, using lifecycle management to save space and reduce costs makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zachary
11 months ago
Haha, option A? Yeah, right, that's like throwing away the whole purpose of versioning.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jerlene
11 months ago
Archival storage is the smart move, D for the win! Saves space and keeps the history.
upvoted 0 times
Jaime
10 months ago
I agree, it's important to find a balance between saving space and retaining important data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corinne
10 months ago
Using OSS's built-in lifecycle management capabilities sounds like a good solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefanie
10 months ago
Definitely, Archival storage is a smart move.
upvoted 0 times
...
Burma
10 months ago
D for the win! Saves space and keeps the history.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Percy
11 months 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
10 months ago
D) Use OSS's built in lifecycle management capabilities to move old versions of objects to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawn
10 months ago
Option C sounds like the most efficient solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ilene
10 months 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
11 months ago
I think option C is a good idea to automatically delete old versions of objects.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel