U.S. Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Palo Alto Networks PSE-Platform Exam - Topic 1 Question 66 Discussion

A price sensitive customer wants to prevent attacks on a windows 2008 Virtual Server. The server will max out at 100Mbps but needs to have 45,000 sessions to connect to multiple hosts within a data centerWhich VM instance should be used to secure the network by this customer?
D) VM-50
A) VM-200
B) VM-100
C) VM-300

Palo Alto Networks PSE-Platform Exam - Topic 1 Question 66 Discussion

Actual exam question for Palo Alto Networks's PSE-Platform exam
Question #: 66
Topic #: 1
[All PSE-Platform Questions]

A price sensitive customer wants to prevent attacks on a windows 2008 Virtual Server. The server will max out at 100Mbps but needs to have 45,000 sessions to connect to multiple hosts within a data center

Which VM instance should be used to secure the network by this customer?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

by Susana at Jul 17, 2024, 03:48 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium PSE-Platform Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Margart
7 months ago
I disagree, VM-300 is overkill for just 100Mbps.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karrie
7 months ago
Surprised they even considered VM-100 for this!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lizette
7 months ago
Definitely not VM-50, that won't handle the load!
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonor
8 months ago
I think VM-200 could work too, but not sure about the session limit.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ramonita
8 months ago
VM-300 is the best choice for 45,000 sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ena
8 months ago
I’m leaning towards the VM-200 since it matches the bandwidth requirement, but I’m uncertain about its session handling capabilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tomoko
8 months ago
I feel like the VM-100 might not be enough for 45,000 sessions, but I can't recall the specifics of its capacity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
8 months ago
I think we practiced a similar question, and I recall that the VM-300 might be overkill for this scenario, but I can't remember the exact session limits.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hershel
8 months ago
I remember that the VM-200 supports up to 100Mbps, but I'm not sure if it can handle 45,000 sessions effectively.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corinne
8 months ago
This is a tricky one. I'm leaning towards the VM-100 since it seems to strike the right balance between the bandwidth and session requirements, but I'm not 100% confident. I'll need to carefully review the details again before making my final choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rozella
8 months ago
I'm not entirely sure about this one. The 45,000 session requirement seems really high, so I'm wondering if the VM-200 might be a better choice to handle that load. I'll need to double-check the specs on each option to make the best decision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Benedict
9 months ago
Okay, let me break this down. The customer needs to secure a Windows 2008 Virtual Server that can handle 45,000 sessions and max out at 100Mbps. Based on that, I think the VM-100 option is the best fit. It should have the capacity to handle the session load and the bandwidth requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ty
9 months ago
This seems like a pretty straightforward question. The key details are the 100Mbps bandwidth requirement and the need for 45,000 sessions, so I'm thinking the VM-300 option is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynsey
9 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused here. The question mentions the server maxing out at 100Mbps, but the VM-300 option seems overkill for that. I'll need to think this through a bit more carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rhea
9 months ago
This is a good test of my responsive design skills. I'll carefully analyze each option and think about how the layout changes would impact the user experience on different devices. I'm confident I can identify the best solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Raelene
9 months ago
Okay, I think I've got it. I'll calculate the Rolled Throughput Yield and then compare it to the answer choices. This should be straightforward as long as I don't make any silly mistakes in the calculation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lachelle
2 years ago
I wonder if the VM-50 can do the job with a bit of optimization. It might be a more budget-friendly option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Casandra
2 years ago
I'm no network expert, but the VM-300 sounds like it can handle the job. Plus, it has a cool name - who doesn't love a big, powerful VM?
upvoted 0 times
...
Julio
2 years ago
Hmm, the VM-200 could be a good compromise between performance and cost. But the VM-300 might be the safer bet.
upvoted 0 times
...
Avery
2 years ago
The VM-100 seems a bit underpowered for this scenario. I'd go with the VM-300 to be on the safe side.
upvoted 0 times
Yan
2 years ago
VM-300 should be able to handle the load and keep the network secure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dino
2 years ago
I agree, VM-300 seems like a safer choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lasandra
2 years ago
I think the VM-200 could also handle the workload, but the VM-300 would provide better security.
upvoted 0 times
...
Boris
2 years ago
I agree, the VM-300 would be the best choice for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maryrose
2 years ago
I think VM-100 might not be enough for this.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Edison
2 years ago
That makes sense, thanks for explaining.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorenza
2 years ago
VM-200 has higher capacity and can handle more sessions, which is important for connecting to multiple hosts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Goldie
2 years ago
I think the VM-300 would be a great choice to secure the network. It can handle the high traffic and session requirements.
upvoted 0 times
Maxima
2 years ago
I think VM-300 is worth the investment for better security and performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charisse
2 years ago
True, VM-200 could work too. It depends on the customer's budget and specific needs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamar
2 years ago
But wouldn't VM-200 also be a good choice? It's a bit cheaper and might still meet the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Doug
2 years ago
I agree, VM-300 seems like the best option for this customer.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Edison
2 years ago
Why do you think VM-200 is better?
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorenza
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe VM-200 would be a better choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edison
2 years ago
I think the customer should go with VM-100.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel