MENU
Your manager requires you to protect a production SVM called svm01 by using SVM-DR. Your manager insists that all configuration and data LUNs be replicated to the DR cluster. The destination SVM should be called drsvm01. You set up an SVM-DR relationship between the clusters, specifying that the -- identity- preserve option is set to true. After the initial replication completes, you discover that the iSCSI LIF configuration has not been replicated to drsvm01.
What should you do to solve this problem?
Suggested Answer: A
Get Premium NS0-527 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
40 comments · newest first
JE
Jenelle
10 months ago
I agree, option B seems like the best fix here.
MO
Mozell
11 months ago
Surprised the iSCSI LIFs didn't replicate, thought that was automatic.
CA
Caren
11 months ago
Definitely don't set up a new relationship without identity-preserve!
AD
Adrianna
11 months ago
Running the relationship again might work, but not sure.
SH
Shakira
11 months ago
I think manually creating the iSCSI LIFs is the way to go.
WI
Willis
12 months ago
I don’t think setting up a new relationship is necessary. It seems like manual configuration is the way to go based on what we studied.
CA
Carol
12 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the -identity-preserve option. Does it really affect LIF replication? I feel like I need to double-check that.
SO
Soledad
12 months ago
I think we practiced a similar question where we had to manually configure LIFs after replication. That might be the right approach here.
DO
Dorothea
1 year ago
I remember that iSCSI LIFs might not replicate automatically, but I'm not sure if running the relationship again would help.
JA
Jamika
1 year ago
Interesting, option D mentions adding the FC protocol. I wonder if there's some additional configuration needed there that could solve the problem. Might be worth exploring that as well.
ST
Stevie
1 year ago
Based on the details provided, I think option A is the safest bet. Running the relationship again and checking the configuration seems like the logical first step to troubleshoot this issue.
HE
Helene
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused on the identity-preserve option and how that might be impacting the replication. Maybe I should try option C and set up a new relationship without that setting.
LA
Lanie
1 year ago
Hmm, this looks like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully review the options and think through the implications of each.
AH
Ahmed
1 year ago
Okay, let's see here. The question says the iSCSI LIF configuration wasn't replicated, so I'm thinking option B might be the way to go and manually create and configure the LIFs on the destination SVM.
ER
Erick
1 year ago
Okay, let's see. The question is asking what would indicate that the liability should still be recognized as a contingent liability rather than a provision. I think the key is the reliable estimate of the cost.
GA
Gary
1 year ago
I've got a strategy here. Since the question mentions the testing team is having issues with the test and staging instances, the correct URLs should be the ones that can access those specific environments. I'll try to eliminate the options that don't seem relevant.
MI
Michael
1 year ago
Creating a new slicer connected to the PivotTable seems like the most obvious solution. I'm pretty confident I can do that. The other options seem a bit more complicated, so I'll focus on that first.
FA
Fabiola
1 year ago
Option D? Really? Adding FC protocol to the destination and configuring the FC LIFs? That's like bringing a bazooka to a knife fight. Overkill much?
EL
Eleonora
1 year ago
Option D is definitely overkill in this situation.
CO
Colette
1 year ago
C) Set up a new relationship without using the -identity-preserve option.
FA
Fabiola
1 year ago
B) Manually create and configure the iSCSI LIFs on drsvm01.
RA
Raelene
1 year ago
A) Run the relationship a second time and check the configuration again.
MA
Malcolm
1 year ago
Hold on, guys. What about option C? Setting up a new relationship without the -identity-preserve option might be the way to go. It's worth a shot, right?
AL
Allene
1 year ago
You know, I was thinking the same thing as Irene. Why go through the trouble of manually configuring everything when you can just try running the relationship again? Option A for the win!
YU
Yuriko
1 year ago
I think running the relationship again is the most efficient solution in this case.
DU
Dustin
1 year ago
Yeah, it's worth a try before resorting to manual configuration on drsvm01.
AL
Alishia
1 year ago
I agree, let's give it another shot and see if the iSCSI LIFs get replicated this time.
IR
Irene
1 year ago
I'm not sure about that. Wouldn't it be better to try running the relationship a second time and see if the issue gets resolved? Option A seems like the safest bet to me.
EL
Eleni
1 year ago
User 3: Agreed, let's give it another shot and check the configuration.
FR
Freeman
1 year ago
User 2: Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Let's go with option A.
MA
Major
1 year ago
User 1: I think we should try running the relationship again.
MO
Mozell
1 year ago
I would go with manually creating and configuring the iSCSI LIFs on drsvm01, just to be sure.
JE
Jennie
1 year ago
I agree with Lynda, that seems like the best solution to solve the problem.
LY
Lynda
1 year ago
I think we should run the relationship again and check the configuration.
ZA
Zachary
1 year ago
Hmm, I think option B is the way to go. Manually creating and configuring the iSCSI LIFs on drsvm01 seems like the quickest and most straightforward solution.
EL
Eleni
1 year ago
User 2: I disagree, I believe manually creating and configuring the iSCSI LIFs on drsvm01 is the best option.
ZI
Zita
1 year ago
User 1: I think we should run the relationship a second time and check the configuration again.
CO
Corinne
2 years ago
Or we could manually create and configure the iSCSI LIFs on drsvm01.
LO
Loreen
2 years ago
I agree with Angelo, let's double check the configuration.
AN
Angelo
2 years ago
I think we should run the relationship a second time.