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

Nutanix Exam NCS-Core Topic 1 Question 42 Discussion

Actual exam question for Nutanix's NCS-Core exam
Question #: 42
Topic #: 1
[All NCS-Core Questions]

A customer with a four-node RF2 cluster is adding application VMs to their system. After adding these VMs, the Prism dashboard shows 81% storage utilization.

What is the consequence of running the cluster at 81% storage utilization?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Ezekiel at Jul 29, 2023, 04:18 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium NCS-Core Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Allene
3 months ago
Whoa, 81% utilization? That's like trying to stuff a hippo into a shoebox. I'm gonna have to go with option C on this one - that node failure is gonna be faster than a cheetah on Red Bull.
upvoted 0 times
Lyda
2 months ago
We might need to consider some storage optimization to prevent any potential issues with the cluster.
upvoted 0 times
...
Florinda
2 months ago
Yeah, we need to keep an eye on that storage utilization. Option C does seem like a real possibility.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denise
2 months ago
I agree, 81% is cutting it close. Node failure could definitely be a risk.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rozella
3 months ago
Hold up, are we talking about a four-node cluster or a four-legged chicken? Either way, 81% storage utilization is no joke. I'd have to go with C - that node failure is gonna be as inevitable as a bad pun from the guy next to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Olen
3 months ago
Hmm, 81% huh? Sounds like the customer needs to start downsizing their VM collection before they end up with a storage disaster on their hands. I'd go with D on this one - the cluster is definitely not resilient enough to handle that kind of load.
upvoted 0 times
Erasmo
2 months ago
Yeah, definitely not a good situation to be in. They should definitely consider downsizing those VMs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nicolette
2 months ago
I agree, D seems like the best option here. The cluster won't be able to handle much more at 81%.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ellen
3 months ago
But isn't option B saying that the cluster is resilient?
upvoted 0 times
...
Vernell
3 months ago
I agree with you, Derick. Node failure could happen soon.
upvoted 0 times
...
Herminia
3 months ago
81% storage utilization? That's cutting it close! Better start looking for a new cluster before the whole thing comes crashing down. I'm thinking option C is the way to go - node failure is just around the corner.
upvoted 0 times
Sena
2 months ago
Let's not wait for a node failure to happen. We should take action now to prevent any downtime.
upvoted 0 times
...
Johnna
2 months ago
It's risky to run the cluster at such high utilization. We need to address this before it's too late.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barabara
2 months ago
I think we should consider adding more storage capacity to avoid any potential issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yuette
2 months ago
I agree, 81% is definitely pushing it. Node failure could be right around the corner.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Derick
3 months ago
I think running the cluster at 81% storage utilization is risky.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel