IBM C1000-085 Exam - Topic 10 Question 72 Discussion

Actual exam question for IBM's C1000-085 exam

Question #: 72
Topic #: 10

[All C1000-085 Questions]

Which statement regarding drive failure is true?

AQueries and transactions are not interrupted by drive failure if their data is not on the failed drive.

BQueries and transactions are not interrupted in the event of a drive failure.

CQueries and transactions are interrupted by drive failure because there is no drive mirroring for drives.

DRunning queries and transactions will finish, but new transactions will not be allowed till drive is changed.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

by Dana at Sep 14, 2024, 02:20 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium C1000-085 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Carole

3 months ago

C sounds a bit off. Drive mirroring is common these days.

upvoted 0 times

...

Holley

3 months ago

D seems plausible too, but I lean towards A.

upvoted 0 times

...

Henriette

3 months ago

Wait, what? I thought all transactions would stop during a drive failure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eura

4 months ago

Totally agree with A! Makes sense.

upvoted 0 times

...

Billye

4 months ago

A is correct, as long as the data isn't on the failed drive.

upvoted 0 times

...

Catalina

4 months ago

I’m confused about B; it seems too absolute. I feel like there has to be some impact from a drive failure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sonia

4 months ago

I practiced a similar question, and I feel like D could be correct since running transactions might finish, but new ones would be blocked.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsey

4 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about drive mirroring that might relate to option C.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tawanna

5 months ago

I think option A sounds right because if the data isn't on the failed drive, the queries should still work.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lovetta

5 months ago

I'm pretty confident I know the answer to this. Queries and transactions should not be interrupted if the data they're accessing isn't on the failed drive.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tamar

5 months ago

Okay, I've got a strategy here. I'll think through each of the answer choices and consider how drive failure would impact the system's ability to handle queries and transactions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Izetta

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit confused on this one. I'll need to review my notes on drive redundancy and fault tolerance to figure out the right answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carlota

5 months ago

This is a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the different scenarios involving drive failure and how that might impact queries and transactions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Han

1 year ago

Haha, I love these drive failure questions. They're like the database equivalent of 'If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?' Anyway, I think C is the right answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Laurel

1 year ago

Oh, come on! This is a no-brainer. It's obviously C. You can't just keep running queries and transactions if a drive goes down. That's just asking for data loss and system instability.

upvoted 0 times

Jerry

1 year ago

Eladia: Exactly, it's all about data redundancy and ensuring system stability in case of drive failures.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eladia

1 year ago

User 2: I see, that makes sense. So, it's important to have data distributed across multiple drives to prevent interruptions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dortha

1 year ago

Actually, the correct answer is A. Queries and transactions are not interrupted by drive failure if their data is not on the failed drive.

upvoted 0 times

...

Miles

1 year ago

Hmm, I'm not so sure. I'd go with D. The existing queries and transactions might finish, but new ones would be blocked until the drive is replaced. Seems like the most logical scenario.

upvoted 0 times

Lynelle

1 year ago

User3: I agree with User2, D seems like the most logical scenario in case of drive failure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kanisha

1 year ago

I disagree, I believe D is the correct statement. Running queries and transactions will finish, but new transactions will not be allowed till drive is changed.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sylvia

1 year ago

I think A is the correct statement. Queries and transactions are not interrupted by drive failure if their data is not on the failed drive.

upvoted 0 times

...

Julio

1 year ago

But if there is no drive mirroring, wouldn't queries be interrupted?

upvoted 0 times

...

Ria

1 year ago

I disagree, I believe the answer is D.

upvoted 0 times

...

Devora

1 year ago

I think B is the right choice. Queries and transactions should not be interrupted in the event of a drive failure. The system should be able to handle that seamlessly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Julio

1 year ago

I think the correct answer is A.

upvoted 0 times

...

Quentin

1 year ago

Option C seems to be the correct answer. Queries and transactions would definitely be interrupted if a drive fails, as there is no drive mirroring to ensure data redundancy.

upvoted 0 times

Margot

1 year ago

So, we need to ensure data redundancy to avoid interruptions in case of drive failure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alise

1 year ago

I agree. Without drive mirroring, there is no redundancy to prevent interruption.

upvoted 0 times

...

Allene

1 year ago

I think option C is correct. Queries and transactions would be interrupted by drive failure.

upvoted 0 times

...