New Year Sale 2026! 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

RedHat EX200 Exam - Topic 2 Question 20 Discussion

Actual exam question for RedHat's EX200 exam
Question #: 20
Topic #: 2
[All EX200 Questions]

There is a local logical volumes in your system, named with common and belong to VGSRV volume group, mount to the /common directory. The definition of size is 128 MB.

Requirement:

Extend the logical volume to 190 MB without any loss of data. The size is allowed between 160-160 MB after extending.

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Pamella at May 09, 2022, 05:42 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium EX200 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Daniela
4 months ago
I thought we could go up to 190 MB, that's surprising!
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregoria
4 months ago
Just use lvextend -L 160M instead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Matt
4 months ago
Wait, are we sure about the size limits?
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
4 months ago
Totally agree, the command is wrong!
upvoted 0 times
...
Devon
4 months ago
You can only extend to 160 MB, not 190 MB.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maryann
5 months ago
I’m pretty sure we need to ensure the logical volume is within the specified limits, but I can’t recall if 190 MB is valid for this case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tanja
5 months ago
I feel like the command should specify the size correctly, but I’m confused about the range allowed after extending.
upvoted 0 times
...
Terrilyn
5 months ago
I think we did a similar question where we had to use lvextend first and then resize2fs, but I’m not clear on the exact size parameters.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annelle
5 months ago
I remember we practiced extending logical volumes, but I’m not sure if the command syntax is correct for the size limit.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brande
5 months ago
Okay, let me see if I can break this down. ISO 26262 is definitely related to functional safety, not security. And I believe it is based on the general IEC 61508 standard, but tailored for the automotive domain. I think C is the right answer, but I'll double-check my notes to be sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lea
5 months ago
Option D, a peer review of the requirements, seems like a solid choice to me. Getting a fresh set of eyes on the requirements could help identify any ambiguities or areas that need clarification.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel