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

Splunk SPLK-2002 Exam - Topic 3 Question 64 Discussion

An indexer cluster is being designed with the following characteristics:* 10 search peers* Replication Factor (RF): 4* Search Factor (SF): 3* No SmartStore usageHow many search peers can fail before data becomes unsearchable?
C) Three peers can fail.
A) Zero peers can fail.
B) One peer can fail.
D) Four peers can fail.

Splunk SPLK-2002 Exam - Topic 3 Question 64 Discussion

Actual exam question for Splunk's SPLK-2002 exam
Question #: 64
Topic #: 3
[All SPLK-2002 Questions]

An indexer cluster is being designed with the following characteristics:

* 10 search peers

* Replication Factor (RF): 4

* Search Factor (SF): 3

* No SmartStore usage

How many search peers can fail before data becomes unsearchable?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Lonna at Jan 06, 2023, 09:03 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium SPLK-2002 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Wilbert
8 months ago
One peer failing sounds too risky for me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denny
8 months ago
No way, zero peers can fail!
upvoted 0 times
...
Rozella
9 months ago
Wait, can four really fail? That seems off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joanna
9 months ago
Yeah, I agree with that!
upvoted 0 times
...
Sarah
9 months ago
I think three peers can fail before data is unsearchable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenneth
9 months ago
I’m confused about the relationship between RF and SF. If RF is 4, does that mean we can only afford to lose 3 peers? I’m leaning towards option C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharmaine
9 months ago
This question feels familiar. I practiced one where the RF was lower, and we could lose more peers. I think here, it might be just 1 peer that can fail safely.
upvoted 0 times
...
Andra
9 months ago
I’m not entirely sure, but I feel like the search factor of 3 means we can lose some peers without losing access. Maybe 3 peers can fail?
upvoted 0 times
...
Onita
9 months ago
I think I remember that with a replication factor of 4, we need at least 4 copies of the data to be available. So, if 4 peers fail, it might become unsearchable?
upvoted 0 times
...
Gerald
9 months ago
This question seems straightforward, I think I can identify the steps in Lewin's model of change pretty well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lanie
9 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. Based on my understanding, cloud-init provides its own startup mechanism that replaces the instance's original init system, so I'm going to go with option C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cathern
10 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about business continuity. I'll think through the options carefully and choose the one that best fits.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ben
1 year ago
Wait, so if four peers fail, we can still search? That's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, but the haystack is on fire. Good luck with that!
upvoted 0 times
...
Veronique
1 year ago
This is a tricky one, but I think the answer is B) One peer can fail. The replication factor of 4 means we need at least 3 peers to search, so if one peer fails, we're still good.
upvoted 0 times
Beckie
1 year ago
Yes, losing one peer out of 10 should still allow us to search the data without any issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glory
1 year ago
Good to know, thanks for clarifying!
upvoted 0 times
...
Dana
1 year ago
That makes sense, with a replication factor of 4 and a search factor of 3, we can afford to lose one peer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deonna
1 year ago
That's correct, as long as only one peer fails, we can still search the data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margo
1 year ago
I agree, the answer is B) One peer can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Noel
1 year ago
I agree, the answer is B) One peer can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Portia
1 year ago
I'm not sure about this one. The replication factor seems to be the key here, but I can't quite figure it out. I'll have to think about it some more.
upvoted 0 times
Darnell
1 year ago
D) Four peers can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleisha
1 year ago
C) Three peers can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ressie
1 year ago
B) One peer can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaclyn
1 year ago
A) Zero peers can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glendora
1 year ago
D) Four peers can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merlyn
1 year ago
C) Three peers can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Huey
1 year ago
B) One peer can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dyan
1 year ago
A) Zero peers can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Abel
1 year ago
Well, if 4 peers fail, that means we'd still have 6 peers left, which is above the search factor of 3, so I think D) Four peers can fail is the right choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joana
1 year ago
Hmm, let me think about this. With 10 search peers, a replication factor of 4, and a search factor of 3, I'd say that C) Three peers can fail is the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
Denise
1 year ago
That makes sense, one peer can fail without affecting the searchability of the data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rachael
1 year ago
I agree, C) Three peers can fail is the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ettie
1 year ago
I'm not sure, but it makes sense that if we have 10 search peers and a Replication Factor of 4, we can tolerate losing three of them before data becomes unsearchable. So, I'll go with C) Three peers can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jennifer
1 year ago
I agree with Paola, because with a Replication Factor of 4 and Search Factor of 3, we can afford to lose up to three search peers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paola
1 year ago
I think the answer is C) Three peers can fail.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel