NetApp NS0-093 Exam - Topic 1 Question 22 Discussion

Actual exam question for NetApp's NS0-093 exam

Question #: 22
Topic #: 1

[All NS0-093 Questions]

Which of the following scenarios could result in a NetApp WAFL inconsistency in a RAID DP aggregate?

Atwo disks failing and a block error during reconstruction

Brebooting a node during a disk reconstruction

Ctwo disks failing within seconds of each other

Dboth party disks failing

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

A NetApp WAFL (Write Anywhere File Layout) inconsistency in a RAID-DP aggregate could occur in the following scenarios:

1. Two disks failing and a block error during reconstruction

Why this causes inconsistency:

RAID-DP is designed to handle up to two concurrent disk failures. However, if a block error occurs during the reconstruction process (e.g., unreadable data on the surviving disks), the RAID group cannot rebuild the lost data, leading to WAFL inconsistencies.

2. Two disks failing within seconds of each other

Why this causes inconsistency:

If two disks in the same RAID group fail nearly simultaneously (before the RAID-DP can reconstruct data from the first failed disk), the system cannot recover the data, resulting in WAFL inconsistencies.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

B . rebooting a node during a disk reconstruction:

Rebooting a node does not cause WAFL inconsistency because ONTAP ensures that RAID reconstructions resume upon reboot without data loss.

D . both party disks failing:

This is not a valid RAID-DP term.

'WAFL and RAID-DP Operations Guide' explains failure scenarios that could cause inconsistencies.

NetApp's 'Troubleshooting RAID Groups and Aggregates' covers recovery procedures for double-disk failures and reconstruction errors.

by Jamey at Jan 05, 2026, 05:16 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium NS0-093 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Anglea

2 days ago

D is a classic case of failure, no doubt about it.

upvoted 0 times

...

Arlean

7 days ago

Wait, can two disks really fail that close together? Sounds sketchy.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chandra

12 days ago

I think C is a real concern too.

upvoted 0 times

...

Karol

18 days ago

A and B are definitely risky scenarios.

upvoted 0 times

...

Iluminada

23 days ago

Option A sounds the most technical, so that's probably the right answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Fanny

28 days ago

Haha, I bet the correct answer is "all of the above"! NetApp loves to keep us on our toes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Meaghan

2 months ago

Hmm, I'm not sure. Maybe B? Rebooting during a reconstruction could really mess things up.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jenelle

2 months ago

I'd go with D. Losing both party disks sounds like a recipe for disaster.

upvoted 0 times

...

Herschel

2 months ago

Option C seems the most likely to cause a WAFL inconsistency.

upvoted 0 times

...

Clay

2 months ago

Option D sounds like it could definitely lead to inconsistencies, but I’m not confident if it’s the only scenario that would.

upvoted 0 times

...

Horace

2 months ago

I think option C is tricky. Two disks failing at the same time seems like it could create problems, but I can't recall the specifics.

upvoted 0 times

...

Remona

2 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like rebooting a node during a disk reconstruction (option B) might cause issues too. It sounds familiar from practice questions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kerry

3 months ago

I remember studying RAID configurations, and I think option A could definitely lead to inconsistencies, especially with a block error during reconstruction.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eleonore

3 months ago

Based on my understanding of RAID DP, I think option B is the way to go. Rebooting a node during a disk reconstruction could definitely disrupt the WAFL and lead to inconsistencies. That's the scenario that stands out to me the most.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ty

3 months ago

I'm a bit confused by this question. Are we talking about a specific RAID configuration here? I'm not super familiar with the details of NetApp WAFL, so I'm not sure which option would be the most problematic. Might need to do some quick research before answering.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hyun

3 months ago

Okay, let me think this through. I'm pretty confident that option D, with both parity disks failing, would be the most likely to cause a WAFL inconsistency. The system wouldn't be able to properly reconstruct the data.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sage

3 months ago

Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm leaning towards option A - a block error during reconstruction could definitely lead to some WAFL issues. But I'm not 100% sure, so I might need to review my notes on this.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vicky

4 months ago

I'm not too familiar with NetApp WAFL, but I think option C might be the most likely scenario to cause an inconsistency. The simultaneous failure of two disks seems like it could really mess things up.

upvoted 0 times

...