MENU
A Cisco engineer is analyzing a customer environment where dozens of VMs are running on a physical server and UCS chassis are cascaded The setup uses two ISLs in a port channel to the SAN switch (per fabric) The oversubscription from VM to physical SAN port is often 20 (VMs/host) x 72 (9 UCS chassis cascaded = 72 hosts): 2 (ISLs from fabric interconnect to SAN switch port on the NPV core (NPIV enabled switch) This results to 20 x 72 2 per single ISL = 720 VMs per ISL
20 (VMs per host) x 8 (hosts per chassis) x 9 (chassis per port channel to SAN switch) / 2 (ISLs per port channel) = 20 x 8 x 9 / 2 = 720 VMs per SAN F-port What is the best way to resolve possible IOPS bottleneck?
Suggested Answer: C
Get Premium 300-610 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
20 comments · newest first
RA
Rasheeda
2 months ago
Overall, C is the safest bet for optimizing performance.
RA
Rasheeda
2 months ago
D is risky. Removing encryption might expose data vulnerabilities.
AS
Ashlyn
2 months ago
I feel like B could help too, but it’s not the main issue here.
BR
Broderick
2 months ago
Option A seems off. A CDN won't help with IOPS bottlenecks.
GL
Glory
2 months ago
I agree, C makes sense. Flow control can reduce congestion.
LE
Lettie
2 months ago
I think option C is the best choice. Prioritizing traffic can help manage IOPS better.
GO
Goldie
3 months ago
720 VMs per ISL? Wow, that sounds like a recipe for disaster!
DO
Domonique
3 months ago
Totally agree, prioritizing flow control makes sense here!
KI
Kirby
3 months ago
Not sure about removing encryption, seems risky.
BO
Bonita
3 months ago
I think option C is the way to go for IOPS issues.
MO
Mona
3 months ago
That's a crazy number of VMs per ISL!
EN
Enola
3 months ago
Not sure if 720 VMs per ISL is sustainable long-term.
MA
Markus
4 months ago
Totally agree with C, flow control is key here.
HA
Haley
4 months ago
Wait, removing data encryption? That sounds risky!
CA
Carlene
5 months ago
I think option C is the way to go.
MA
Margurite
6 months ago
That's a crazy amount of VMs per ISL!
KR
Kristel
6 months ago
I feel like enabling full duplex on the server could help, but I’m not convinced it’s the best solution for a bottleneck caused by oversubscription.
AL
Alyce
6 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the impact of removing data encryption on SSDs. Would that really improve IOPS, or is it more about the data transfer rate?
DA
Dalene
6 months ago
This question seems similar to one we practiced about optimizing SAN performance. I think configuring priority flow control might help with congestion.
YU
Yuriko
7 months ago
I remember we discussed IOPS bottlenecks in class, but I'm not entirely sure which option directly addresses the issue here.