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 US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IBM C1000-085 Exam - Topic 10 Question 72 Discussion

Which statement regarding drive failure is true?
A) Queries and transactions are not interrupted by drive failure if their data is not on the failed drive.
B) Queries and transactions are not interrupted in the event of a drive failure.
C) Queries and transactions are interrupted by drive failure because there is no drive mirroring for drives.
D) Running queries and transactions will finish, but new transactions will not be allowed till drive is changed.

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?

Show Suggested Answer Hide 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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Carole
6 months ago
C sounds a bit off. Drive mirroring is common these days.
upvoted 0 times
...
Holley
6 months ago
D seems plausible too, but I lean towards A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Henriette
7 months ago
Wait, what? I thought all transactions would stop during a drive failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eura
7 months ago
Totally agree with A! Makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Billye
7 months ago
A is correct, as long as the data isn't on the failed drive.
upvoted 0 times
...
Catalina
7 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
7 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
8 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about drive mirroring that might relate to option C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tawanna
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
2 years 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
2 years 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
2 years ago
Eladia: Exactly, it's all about data redundancy and ensuring system stability in case of drive failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eladia
2 years 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
2 years 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
2 years 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
2 years ago
User3: I agree with User2, D seems like the most logical scenario in case of drive failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kanisha
2 years 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
2 years 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
2 years ago
But if there is no drive mirroring, wouldn't queries be interrupted?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ria
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is D.
upvoted 0 times
...
Devora
2 years 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
2 years ago
I think the correct answer is A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Quentin
2 years 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
2 years ago
So, we need to ensure data redundancy to avoid interruptions in case of drive failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alise
2 years ago
I agree. Without drive mirroring, there is no redundancy to prevent interruption.
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
2 years ago
I think option C is correct. Queries and transactions would be interrupted by drive failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel