MENU
Your IT company is using NetApp FlexClone on a two node AFF cluster with 20TB of data to rapidly provision environments for each developer.
Each environment is replicated to an eight node AFF C-Series cluster at a DR site using SnapMirror. You notice that the environments are consuming significantly more disk space on the destination cluster than on the source cluster.
In this scenario, which action will minimize the disk usage on the destination cluster?
Suggested Answer: D
Get Premium NS0-528 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
FlexClone volumes are space-efficient on the source cluster because they share blocks with the parent. However, SnapMirror transfers them as full physical copies by default unless you re-create them as FlexClone volumes on the DR site.
Enabling FlexClone copies on the destination will preserve their space efficiency and minimize disk usage on the DR cluster.
32 comments · newest first
GA
Garry
7 months ago
Compression is definitely the way to go for this scenario.
HU
Huey
7 months ago
Balancing is good, but it won’t directly reduce disk usage.
TE
Terrilyn
8 months ago
I feel like distributing volumes could help balance the load.
TA
Tanesha
8 months ago
Network compression seems straightforward and effective.
BU
Buddy
8 months ago
Right, we want to minimize space, not complicate things.
GA
Garry
8 months ago
FlexClone copies on the DR side might just add more complexity.
TE
Terrilyn
8 months ago
But what about consolidating volumes? That could help too.
AL
Aliza
8 months ago
Not sure about that, but I’d definitely check the replication settings first.
TY
Ty
9 months ago
I’m surprised the disk usage is so high on the destination cluster.
JO
Josephine
9 months ago
FlexClone on the DR side? That sounds interesting!
DE
Dewitt
9 months ago
I disagree, consolidating volumes might be a better option.
VA
Valentin
9 months ago
I think enabling SnapMirror network compression could help reduce disk usage.
CH
Charlena
9 months ago
Distributing volumes evenly sounds logical, but I feel like compression might actually save more space on the destination cluster.
RA
Rashida
9 months ago
I practiced a similar question where enabling FlexClone on the DR side seemed to reduce space, but I’m not confident if it applies here.
KR
Kristeen
10 months ago
I think consolidating the SnapMirror volumes could help, but I’m not entirely clear on how that affects disk space.
LE
Leonardo
10 months ago
I remember something about SnapMirror and how it handles data, but I'm not sure if enabling compression is the best option here.
BU
Buddy
10 months ago
I think enabling SnapMirror network compression is the best choice.
HU
Huey
10 months ago
True, but it might not reduce the overall disk usage as much as compression.
TA
Tanesha
10 months ago
Agreed! It can save a lot of space during transfers.
CA
Cassandra
11 months ago
Consolidating the volumes onto a single aggregate? That's just asking for trouble. Option B is the way to go.
RE
Reena
11 months ago
Haha, I bet the developers are really filling up that DR site! Option C is the way to go.
TE
Terina
11 months ago
Option D seems like the best choice. Enabling FlexClone on the DR side will save a ton of space.
AL
Alva
11 months ago
I'd go with option B. Spreading the volumes across aggregates can help balance the load.
OR
Oretha
12 months ago
Option C looks good to me. Compression can really help reduce the space usage.
WI
William
12 months ago
I'm leaning towards option B. Distributing the volumes evenly across aggregates could help balance the disk usage and prevent any single aggregate from getting overloaded. That seems like a good way to optimize the space on the destination cluster.
AR
Arthur
12 months ago
Okay, let me think this through. Since the environments are using FlexClone on the source, enabling FlexClone copies on the DR side (option D) could help reduce the disk usage there. That might be the best solution.
FR
Frederica
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. The question says the environments are consuming more disk space on the destination cluster, so I'm not sure compression would help with that. Maybe distributing the volumes across aggregates (option B) could be a better approach?
AL
Alva
1 year ago
I think the key here is to minimize the disk usage on the destination cluster. Option C, enabling SnapMirror network compression, seems like the most straightforward way to do that.
JA
Jamal
6 months ago
FlexClone copies on the DR side could complicate things. Compression seems simpler.
TH
Thad
6 months ago
I think distributing volumes evenly could also be beneficial. Less strain on individual aggregates.
AN
An
6 months ago
True, but have we considered option A? Consolidating might help too.
LE
Levi
7 months ago
I agree, option C sounds effective. Compression can save a lot of space.