New Year Sale 2026! 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

Docker DCA Exam - Topic 4 Question 101 Discussion

Actual exam question for Docker's DCA exam
Question #: 101
Topic #: 4
[All DCA Questions]

A company's security policy specifies that development and production containers must run on separate nodes in a given Swarm cluster.

Can this be used to schedule containers to meet the security policy requirements?

Solution: label contraints

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

: = Keeping a backup copy of the image on another repository is not how a user can prevent an image, such as 'nginx:latest', from being overwritten by another user with push access to the repository. This approach does not prevent the original image from being overwritten, it only provides a way to restore it from another source. However, this may not be reliable or efficient, as the backup repository may not be in sync with the original one, or may not be accessible at all times.To prevent an image from being overwritten by another user, the user can use the DTR web UI to make the tag immutable1. This feature allows the user to lock a specific tag, so that no one can push a new image with the same tag to the repository.This ensures that the image is always consistent and secure1.Reference:

Make a tag immutable | Docker Docs


by Charlene at Sep 16, 2024, 06:36 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Willie
3 months ago
Definitely, it's a best practice for security!
upvoted 0 times
...
Brittni
3 months ago
No way, I thought they were just for resource allocation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Francine
3 months ago
Wait, can label constraints really do that?
upvoted 0 times
...
Jamal
4 months ago
Totally agree, it's a solid approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alberto
4 months ago
Yes, label constraints can enforce that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felice
4 months ago
Yes, I believe label constraints are the way to go here. We discussed this in class, and it seems to fit the security policy requirements perfectly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marylou
4 months ago
I'm a bit confused about how label constraints work in Swarm. Can they really enforce such strict separation?
upvoted 0 times
...
Casey
4 months ago
I remember practicing a similar question where we had to use node labels for scheduling. I think this is the right approach!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynette
5 months ago
I think using label constraints could definitely help in separating the containers, but I'm not entirely sure if it's the only solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chantell
5 months ago
Ah, this is a good one. I've worked with Swarm clusters before, and I know label constraints can be used to control where containers are deployed. I'm confident I can figure out the right approach for this security policy requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...
King
5 months ago
Label constraints, huh? I'm not too familiar with that Docker feature, but it sounds like it could be the solution here. I'll need to do some quick research on how to set that up.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sheron
5 months ago
Hmm, this looks like a tricky one. I'll need to think through the Swarm cluster setup and how label constraints can be used to schedule containers based on the security policy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janna
5 months ago
Okay, I think I understand the question. If we can use label constraints to schedule the containers, then the answer should be yes. Let me double-check the details on how to implement that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristen
9 months ago
I'm pretty sure the answer is A. What, did you think I was going to go with B? I'm not falling for that one again.
upvoted 0 times
Antonette
8 months ago
I'm pretty sure the answer is A. What, did you think I was going to go with B? I'm not falling for that one again.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lottie
8 months ago
Definitely, using label constraints is the way to go to ensure containers are scheduled properly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tegan
8 months ago
B) No
upvoted 0 times
...
Kanisha
8 months ago
I agree, it seems like the best option to meet the security policy requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delfina
8 months ago
Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
Venita
8 months ago
A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Timmy
10 months ago
Yes, label constraints are the way to go. Now, if only I could find a label that says 'keep the boss away from the production server'.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vivan
10 months ago
Label constraints? That's like using duct tape to fix a leaky faucet. It'll probably work, but it ain't pretty.
upvoted 0 times
Scarlet
8 months ago
Label constraints? That's like using duct tape to fix a leaky faucet. It'll probably work, but it ain't pretty.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lonny
8 months ago
B) No
upvoted 0 times
...
Wava
9 months ago
A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Teresita
10 months ago
Ah, the old 'separate nodes' conundrum. I bet the security team has been having a field day with this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashunda
10 months ago
I think the solution provided is effective in meeting the security policy requirements, so I would go with option A) Yes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Isaiah
10 months ago
I agree with Goldie, using label constraints is a good way to ensure containers are running on separate nodes for security purposes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Goldie
11 months ago
Yes, we can use label constraints to schedule containers on separate nodes.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel