MENU
A customer wants to Implement a NetApp AFF system at a small remote site that has two ESXi servers that require SAN storage from the NetApp ONTAP based storage system. The servers will be directly connected, because the customer does not want to deploy any switches.
Which protocol should the customer use?
Suggested Answer: D
Get Premium NS0-521 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
For a small remote site with two ESXi servers requiring SAN storage and no switches, the recommended protocol is iSCSI. iSCSI allows for direct connectivity between the servers and the NetApp ONTAP storage system using standard Ethernet infrastructure, which is suitable for environments without Fibre Channel switches.
For more information, see:
NetApp iSCSI Configuration Guide
36 comments · newest first
AN
Anissa
10 months ago
Wait, can you really use FCP without switches? That seems odd.
DY
Dyan
11 months ago
NFS won't work here, it's not a SAN protocol.
RO
Rory
11 months ago
I thought iSCSI would be better for small sites?
AR
Argelia
11 months ago
Totally agree, FCP is perfect for that setup!
PE
Penney
11 months ago
FCP is the way to go for direct connections.
FE
Felicitas
12 months ago
NFS seems more like a file storage protocol, so I doubt that's the answer here. I think it has to be one of the SAN protocols.
ED
Edison
12 months ago
I feel like FCoE could be an option, but I don't recall it being as common for small setups without switches.
CA
Carmen
12 months ago
I remember practicing a question about direct connections, and I think iSCSI could work too, but it might not be the best fit for performance.
FA
Fairy
1 year ago
I think FCP might be the right choice since it's commonly used for SAN storage with ESXi, but I'm not entirely sure.
JO
Johnathon
1 year ago
iSCSI seems like the logical choice to me. It's a straightforward protocol that should meet the customer's requirements without any additional complexity.
CA
Carin
1 year ago
I'm not sure about this one. The question mentions SAN storage, so maybe FCoE could be an option? I'll have to think it through carefully.
LI
Ligia
1 year ago
I'm pretty confident that iSCSI is the way to go here. It's a simple, direct connection that should work well for this small remote site.
DO
Dominga
1 year ago
This looks like a straightforward question. Since the customer doesn't want to use any switches, I think the best option is iSCSI.
MA
Margarett
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't FCP be a better choice since it's a direct connection between the servers and the NetApp storage?
LI
Lindsey
1 year ago
Okay, the lag status error is the key issue here. I think resynchronizing the relationship is the way to go, but I'll double-check the other options just to be sure.
TA
Tamekia
1 year ago
This seems like a pretty straightforward risk analysis question. I'm pretty confident that the answer is B - Sensitivity analysis.
EL
Elfriede
2 years ago
I believe iSCSI would be the most cost-effective solution for the customer.
CR
Cristal
2 years ago
But FCP provides better performance for block-level storage.
HA
Han
2 years ago
I disagree, NFS would be a better option for this scenario.
NO
Noel
2 years ago
Hmm, iSCSI does sound like the winner. Although I'm picturing the customer trying to plug their servers directly into the NetApp system with just a couple of ethernet cables. That's going to be an interesting setup!
CA
Carrol
2 years ago
iSCSI all the way! It's like the Switzerland of storage protocols - neutral, efficient, and gets the job done.
WE
Wenona
2 years ago
Using iSCSI will make the implementation smooth and efficient.
ET
Ettie
2 years ago
I agree, iSCSI is a solid choice for direct connections.
EL
Elvis
2 years ago
iSCSI is definitely the way to go for this setup.
CR
Cristal
2 years ago
I think the customer should use FCP.
CH
Chaya
2 years ago
I would go with iSCSI, it's easy to implement and cost-effective for small remote sites.
ME
Meghann
2 years ago
I think FCoE could also be a good choice, as it provides low latency and high bandwidth.
SO
Sonia
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe NFS would be a better option for this scenario.
LA
Lashawnda
2 years ago
I'm voting for iSCSI too. FCP would require extra hardware, and FCoE is a bit overkill for a small remote site.
AN
Antonette
2 years ago
Agreed, iSCSI is the most cost-effective option for direct connection.
RA
Rashad
2 years ago
iSCSI is definitely the way to go for this setup.
JA
Janey
2 years ago
iSCSI seems like the obvious choice here. No need for switches, and it works with ESXi servers. Straight to the point.
IR
Ira
2 years ago
C: iSCSI is the clear choice here. It's easy to implement and works well with ESXi servers. The customer will have a smooth setup with this protocol.
FL
Floyd
2 years ago
B: Agreed, iSCSI is the most suitable protocol for this setup. It's simple and efficient for connecting the ESXi servers to the storage system.
JU
Jutta
2 years ago
A: iSCSI is definitely the way to go in this situation. It's perfect for directly connecting the servers to the NetApp AFF system.
MA
Mabelle
2 years ago
I think the customer should use FCP.