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
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, 03:27 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Tresa
2 days ago
I think B is better, manual checks can be more precise.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carey
8 days ago
Option C sounds smart, automatic cleanup is key!
upvoted 0 times
...
Madonna
14 days ago
I think avoiding version management altogether isn't a good idea. We need some versioning benefits, so C or D seems more practical.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daisy
19 days ago
I vaguely recall a practice question about moving old versions to archival storage. Option D sounds familiar, but I'm leaning towards C for automatic deletion.
upvoted 0 times
...
Izetta
24 days ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think using Function Compute to delete old versions could be a bit complicated. Option B feels risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alyce
1 month ago
I remember discussing the importance of lifecycle management in our last study group. It seems like option C might be the best choice for saving space.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brandon
1 month ago
I'm pretty confident I can handle this. The key is using OSS's built-in tools to automate the management of old versions. That should save a lot of headaches.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorrine
1 month ago
Versioning is important, but the costs can really add up. I'll see if I can find a way to balance the two, maybe by moving older versions to cheaper storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Terrilyn
1 month ago
Okay, I think I've got a strategy here. I'll focus on the lifecycle management capabilities to automatically manage old versions and keep costs down.
upvoted 0 times
...
Honey
1 month ago
This is a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the trade-offs between retaining versioning benefits and reducing costs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adaline
1 month ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. I'll need to review the options and make sure I understand the implications of each approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Refugia
1 month ago
Alright, I think I've got a handle on this. The key is to focus on the specific details about the storage pools and their capabilities. I'm pretty confident I can identify the true statement here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kirk
1 month ago
Hmm, this seems straightforward. I'll need to carefully read through the question and options to determine who can generate the HR document.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
1 year ago
Versioning is great, but it can get expensive. Gotta love that lifecycle management!
upvoted 0 times
Moira
1 year ago
B) Use the Function Compute Service to regularly check for and delete old versions of objects.
upvoted 0 times
...
Natalie
1 year ago
D) Use OSS's built in lifecycle management capabilities to move old versions of objects to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alyce
1 year 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 year ago
I'd rather not have the Function Compute team snoop around my buckets, so C is my pick.
upvoted 0 times
Wade
1 year ago
That's a good point, it's important to find a balance between saving space and retaining important data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lili
1 year ago
In that case, we could use OSS's lifecycle management to move old versions to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashaunda
1 year ago
But what if we want to keep some old versions for backup purposes?
upvoted 0 times
...
Bev
1 year 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 year ago
That's true, Chaya. It depends on the specific needs and requirements of the project.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chaya
1 year ago
But what about option D? Moving old versions to Archival Storage could also be a cost-effective solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellsworth
1 year ago
I agree with Ernie, using lifecycle management to save space and reduce costs makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zachary
1 year ago
Haha, option A? Yeah, right, that's like throwing away the whole purpose of versioning.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jerlene
1 year ago
Archival storage is the smart move, D for the win! Saves space and keeps the history.
upvoted 0 times
Jaime
1 year ago
I agree, it's important to find a balance between saving space and retaining important data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corinne
1 year ago
Using OSS's built-in lifecycle management capabilities sounds like a good solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefanie
1 year ago
Definitely, Archival storage is a smart move.
upvoted 0 times
...
Burma
1 year ago
D for the win! Saves space and keeps the history.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Percy
1 year 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 year ago
D) Use OSS's built in lifecycle management capabilities to move old versions of objects to Archival Storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawn
1 year ago
Option C sounds like the most efficient solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ilene
1 year 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 year ago
I think option C is a good idea to automatically delete old versions of objects.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel