Discuss Nutanix NCP-MCI-6.10 Exam Topic 2 Question 2

An administrator is protecting an application and its data stored on Volume Groups using Protection Domains.

During failover tests, all application VMs restore successfully, but the application data is completely missing.

How can the Protection Domain configuration be adjusted to avoid this issue in the future? (Choose two.)

ASelect the 'Auto protect related entities' checkbox.

BManually add Volume Groups to Protected Entities.

CPlace Volume Groups in a separate Protection Domain.

DUse application-consistent snapshots.

Suggested Answer: A, B

Protection Domains (PDs) in Nutanix ensure that entire applications and their associated data are protected during failover. However, Volume Groups (VGs) are not automatically included unless explicitly configured.

Option A (Select 'Auto protect related entities') is correct:

This setting ensures that associated Volume Groups, networks, and other dependencies are included in the Protection Domain automatically.

Without enabling this, only the VM itself would be protected, leading to missing application data upon failover.

Option B (Manually add Volume Groups to Protected Entities) is correct:

If 'Auto protect related entities' is not enabled, the administrator must manually add Volume Groups to the Protection Domain.

This ensures that both VMs and their attached Volume Groups are replicated and recovered together.

Option C (Place Volume Groups in a separate Protection Domain) is incorrect:

Separating Volume Groups into a different PD does not guarantee they failover together with VMs.

It is best practice to keep related VMs and Volume Groups in the same PD.

Option D (Use application-consistent snapshots) is incorrect:

While application-consistent snapshots improve data integrity, they do not fix missing Volume Groups in failover scenarios.

Nutanix Disaster Recovery Guide Protection Domain Configuration and Volume Groups

Nutanix KB Ensuring Volume Groups Are Included in Disaster Recovery Failovers

Get Premium NCP-MCI-6.10 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test

39 comments · newest first

Cheryl 10 months ago

I disagree, I don't think the checkbox alone will solve the issue.

Nada 10 months ago

Wait, are we sure separate Protection Domains really help?

Colton 10 months ago

Definitely need to check that 'Auto protect related entities' box!

Viva 10 months ago

Application-consistent snapshots are key for data integrity!

Iraida 10 months ago

I think manually adding Volume Groups is a must too.

Linette 11 months ago

Using application-consistent snapshots seems like it could help, but I need to double-check if that’s the right approach for this scenario.

Fabiola 11 months ago

Placing Volume Groups in a separate Protection Domain sounds familiar, but I can't recall if that would actually help with the data issue we saw in the test.

Nydia 11 months ago

I think manually adding Volume Groups to Protected Entities could be a good idea, but I wonder if that would complicate the configuration.

Ardella 11 months ago

I remember something about the 'Auto protect related entities' option, but I'm not entirely sure if that would cover the Volume Groups too.

Billi 11 months ago

I feel pretty confident about this one. The key is to make sure the Volume Groups are properly included in the Protection Domain, either by selecting the 'Auto protect related entities' checkbox or manually adding them. I think either of those options should solve the issue.

Junita 12 months ago

Alright, I've got a strategy here. Based on the question, it seems like we need to either automatically protect the related entities or manually add the Volume Groups to the Protected Entities. I'll try to weigh the pros and cons of each option.

Detra 12 months ago

I'm a bit confused on this one. Is the issue that the Volume Groups aren't being protected, or is there something else going on with the snapshots? I'll need to review the options carefully to figure out the best approach.

Myrtie 1 year ago

Okay, let's see here. The issue is that the application VMs are restoring successfully, but the data is missing. I think the key is to make sure the Volume Groups are properly included in the Protection Domain.

Elza 1 year ago

Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully read through the options and think about how the Protection Domain configuration could be adjusted to ensure the application data is protected during failover.

Marshall 1 year ago

I think placing Volume Groups in a separate Protection Domain could also help avoid this issue in the future.

Shanda 1 year ago

I believe we should also use application-consistent snapshots to ensure data is not missing during failover tests.

Ming 1 year ago

I agree with Major. That way, all related entities will be protected automatically.

Clay 1 year ago

I bet the admin was so focused on protecting the VMs, they forgot the actual data. Gotta remember the whole package, not just the wrapping!

Huey 1 year ago

↳ replying to Clay

C) Place Volume Groups in a separate Protection Domain.

Coletta 1 year ago

↳ replying to Clay

A) Select the 'Auto protect related entities' checkbox.

Major 1 year ago

I think we should select the 'Auto protect related entities' checkbox.

Lenna 2 years ago

Ooh, using application-consistent snapshots sounds like a good idea. That way, the data and the VMs are all protected together.

Alaine 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

Placing Volume Groups in a separate Protection Domain might be another way to prevent this issue in the future.

Cheryl 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

Manually adding Volume Groups to Protected Entities could also help avoid missing data during failover tests.

Iluminada 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

We could also select the 'Auto protect related entities' checkbox to ensure everything is protected together.

Lajuana 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

Yes, using application-consistent snapshots is a good idea.

Haley 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

Tammy: Good idea, that should help avoid missing data during failover tests.

Tammy 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

Alesia: We could also use application-consistent snapshots for added protection.

Alesia 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

User 2: Yeah, that way everything is protected together.

Jacinta 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

User 1: I think we should select the 'Auto protect related entities' checkbox.

Meghann 2 years ago

Haha, maybe the admin forgot to check the 'Auto protect related entities' box. Rookie mistake, but an easy fix!

Felix 2 years ago

Hmm, I think the key is to make sure the Volume Groups are explicitly included in the Protection Domain. Manually adding them seems like the way to go.

Laurel 1 year ago

↳ replying to Felix

Using application-consistent snapshots is another good option to consider for avoiding missing data during failover tests.

Mattie 1 year ago

↳ replying to Felix

I think selecting the 'Auto protect related entities' checkbox could also help prevent data loss.

Berry 1 year ago

↳ replying to Felix

I agree, manually adding Volume Groups to Protected Entities is important.

Adolph 2 years ago

Ugh, this is so frustrating. How can the data be missing when the VMs restore successfully? It's like the Protection Domain is protecting everything except the actual data!

Reta 2 years ago

↳ replying to Adolph

I know, it's frustrating. Maybe we need to adjust the Protection Domain configuration to include the data as well.

Loreen 2 years ago

↳ replying to Adolph

C) Place Volume Groups in a separate Protection Domain.

Lettie 2 years ago

↳ replying to Adolph

A) Select the 'Auto protect related entities' checkbox.

Nutanix NCP-MCI-6.10 Exam - Topic 2 Question 2 Discussion