MENU
-- Exhibit --
-- Exhibit --
Refer to the exhibit.
Which profile could be removed or changed on this virtual server to reduce CPU load on the LTM device without increasing server side bandwidth usage?
Suggested Answer: C
Get Premium 301b Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
38 comments · newest first
SH
Shannon
11 months ago
Optimized-caching could be a good option too, but not sure if it’s the best choice.
ER
Eric
11 months ago
I’d say tcp is the least impactful to remove.
OR
Orville
11 months ago
Wait, are we sure that won't affect bandwidth?
CR
Cristy
12 months ago
Totally agree, that one seems like a heavy hitter for CPU usage.
DO
Dorthy
12 months ago
I think removing the httpcompression profile would help reduce CPU load.
RO
Rory
12 months ago
I feel like httpcompression might be the right answer since it compresses data, but then again, would that increase bandwidth usage? I'm not entirely sure.
LA
Lakeesha
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused about the optimized-caching profile. I thought it was meant to reduce load, but could it actually be causing more CPU usage?
MY
Myong
1 year ago
I think we had a similar question about HTTP profiles in our practice tests. If I recall correctly, they can be resource-intensive, so maybe that's the one to change?
LA
Lai
1 year ago
I remember we discussed how TCP profiles can sometimes add overhead, but I'm not sure if removing it would really help with CPU load.
EL
Elinore
1 year ago
I've got a good feeling about this one. Based on the information provided, I think the httpcompression profile would be the best choice to remove or change. Compression can be CPU-intensive, so getting rid of that should help reduce the CPU load without increasing the server-side bandwidth.
TA
Tasia
1 year ago
Okay, let's see. The TCP profile is responsible for managing the TCP connections, so removing or changing that might reduce CPU load, but it could also impact the server-side bandwidth. The HTTP profile handles the HTTP protocol, so that's another option to consider. I'll need to weigh the pros and cons of each choice.
TE
Telma
1 year ago
I think the key here is to focus on reducing CPU load without increasing server-side bandwidth usage. The profiles listed seem to be related to different aspects of the virtual server configuration, so I'll need to carefully consider the impact of each one.
DA
Daniela
1 year ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm not entirely sure which profile would be the best to remove or change to achieve the desired result. I'll need to think through the functionality of each profile and how it might affect the CPU load and server-side bandwidth.
LE
Leonida
1 year ago
I think the key here is understanding what Promiscuous Mode does. If it's set to Accept, that would allow the packet sniffer to see all the traffic, which is the opposite of what we want. So I'm going to go with Promiscuous Mode set to Reject.
CA
Cathern
1 year ago
Hey, I got an idea! Why don't we just overclock the LTM device? That'll show that CPU who's boss. Then we can crank up all the profiles to the max and let the server take a break. Problem solved, baby!
MA
Marla
1 year ago
D) optimized-caching
LA
Lavonne
1 year ago
C) httpcompression
MO
Mose
1 year ago
B) http
PE
Peggie
1 year ago
A) tcp
CH
Christiane
1 year ago
Whoa, hold up! What if we just unplug the whole LTM device and let the server handle it all? That's gotta be the ultimate CPU-saver, right? I mean, who needs load balancing when you've got pure server power!
NI
Nikita
1 year ago
Hmm, let me think... I'd say the HTTP profile. Why? Because if you remove it, the LTM won't have to deal with all those pesky HTTP headers and whatnot. Plus, the server can just spit out raw data. Boom, CPU load reduced!
TE
Terrilyn
1 year ago
Dude, this is easy. It's gotta be the TCP profile. I mean, who needs all that fancy HTTP stuff when you can just strip it down to the bare essentials, right? Less processing, less CPU load. Simple as that!
TE
Telma
1 year ago
True, but I still think TCP profile is the most straightforward option to go with.
BE
Beth
1 year ago
I see your point, but optimized-caching could also be a good choice to reduce CPU load.
ZO
Zona
1 year ago
But what about HTTP compression? Wouldn't that help reduce CPU load as well?
FR
Fredric
1 year ago
I think you're right, TCP profile seems like the best option here.
LO
Lorriane
1 year ago
Ooh, a trick question! I bet it's the optimized-caching profile. Reduce the CPU load by letting the LTM handle the caching, and the server doesn't have to work harder. Yeah, that's the one!
LA
Laine
1 year ago
I see your point, but I still think optimized-caching is the better option in this case.
GL
Glen
1 year ago
But what about httpcompression? Wouldn't that also help in reducing CPU load?
RO
Rosio
1 year ago
I think you're right, optimized-caching would be the best choice to reduce CPU load.
CH
Cherri
2 years ago
Hmm, let's see. If we want to reduce the CPU load on the LTM device without increasing server-side bandwidth usage, I'd say the HTTP compression profile is the way to go. Less processing on the LTM, and the server doesn't have to work harder. Seems like a win-win to me!
OL
Olen
1 year ago
I agree, both HTTP compression and optimized caching profiles could be effective in reducing CPU load on the LTM device.
CA
Carlota
1 year ago
That's a good point, optimized caching could also be a good option to consider.
AN
Andrew
1 year ago
But wouldn't optimizing caching also help in reducing the CPU load without increasing server-side bandwidth usage?
TH
Thad
1 year ago
I think you're right, HTTP compression profile would definitely help reduce CPU load on the LTM device.
GL
Glenn
2 years ago
But what about optimized-caching? Wouldn't removing that profile also help in reducing CPU load?
BL
Blondell
2 years ago
I agree with Jerilyn. Removing httpcompression could reduce CPU load without increasing server side bandwidth usage.
JE
Jerilyn
2 years ago
I think the profile that could be removed is httpcompression.