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

NetApp Exam NS0-593 Topic 5 Question 54 Discussion

Actual exam question for NetApp's NS0-593 exam
Question #: 54
Topic #: 5
[All NS0-593 Questions]

A customer is calling you to troubleshoot why users are unable to connect to their CIFS SVM.

Referring to the Information shown in the exhibit, what Is the source of the problem?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A, D

= To prevent file ID conflicts in a FlexGroup volume, you need to enable 64-bit NFSv3 and NFSv4 identifiers on the SVM that hosts the FlexGroup volume. This allows the SVM to use 64-bit file system IDs (FSIDs) and file IDs, which are unique across the cluster and can accommodate a large number of files. The -v3-64bit-identifiers and -v4-64bit-identifiers parameters enable this feature for NFSv3 and NFSv4 protocols respectively.Reference=Editing FlexGroup volumes,Enabling 64-bit NFSv3 identifiers on an SVM,NetApp ONTAP FlexGroup volumes --- Best practices and implementation guide


by Wenona at Sep 10, 2024, 11:53 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium NS0-593 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Johana
21 days ago
Wait, so the problem is that the users are 'unable to connect'? I thought they were just 'really good at hide-and-seek' and were hiding from the CIFS SVM. My bad.
upvoted 0 times
...
Evelynn
25 days ago
A broken disk in Node03, huh? Well, that's one way to really put the 'broken' in 'broken CIFS SVM'! Time to get our hands dirty and replace that sucker.
upvoted 0 times
Coral
9 days ago
A: Agreed, let's get it fixed to restore connectivity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Coleen
10 days ago
B: We should replace that disk as soon as possible.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jennie
14 days ago
A: Looks like the broken disk in Node03 is causing the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Coletta
2 months ago
Switching the databases from secondary to master on Node03? That's an interesting approach, but I'm not convinced that's the source of the problem. Let's check the node status instead.
upvoted 0 times
Ceola
21 days ago
User2: Agreed, that might give us a better idea of the source of the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fletcher
1 months ago
User1: Let's check the node status first.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Caprice
2 months ago
Hmm, a failed disk in the aggr2 aggregate could definitely cause issues with the CIFS SVM. I'd investigate the aggregate status and disk health first.
upvoted 0 times
Garry
16 days ago
User4: The broken disk in Node03 could also be the source of the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ocie
24 days ago
User3: Maybe we should also look into the v1db database.
upvoted 0 times
...
Olive
1 months ago
User2: Agreed, a failed disk could be causing the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Larue
1 months ago
User1: Let's check the status of the aggr2 aggregate.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Doug
2 months ago
I believe the v1db database being offline could also be causing the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shaquana
2 months ago
The v1db database being offline seems like the most likely culprit here. I'd start by checking the database status and bringing it back online if necessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
Isidra
2 months ago
I agree with Titus, the broken disk in Node03 seems to be the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Titus
2 months ago
I think the source of the problem is the broken disk in Node03.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel