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 9 Question 75 Discussion

A Splunk deployment is being architected and the customer will be using Splunk Enterprise Security (ES) and Splunk IT Service Intelligence (ITSI). Through data onboarding and sizing, it is determined that over 200 discrete KPIs will be tracked by ITSI and 1TB of data per day by ES. What topology ensures a scalable and performant deployment?
A) Two search heads, one for ITSI and one for ES. and C) One search head cluster with both ITSI and ES installed.
B) Two search head clusters, one for ITSI and one for ES.
D) One search head with both ITSI and ES installed.

Splunk SPLK-2002 Exam - Topic 9 Question 75 Discussion

Actual exam question for Splunk's SPLK-2002 exam
Question #: 75
Topic #: 9
[All SPLK-2002 Questions]

A Splunk deployment is being architected and the customer will be using Splunk Enterprise Security (ES) and Splunk IT Service Intelligence (ITSI). Through data onboarding and sizing, it is determined that over 200 discrete KPIs will be tracked by ITSI and 1TB of data per day by ES. What topology ensures a scalable and performant deployment?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A, C

by Eladia at Oct 02, 2023, 09:18 PM

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
Corinne
8 months ago
C could work, but I’d still prefer B for future growth.
upvoted 0 times
...
An
8 months ago
Definitely not A, that would bottleneck performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tina
8 months ago
Wait, can one cluster really manage both ITSI and ES effectively?
upvoted 0 times
...
Luz
8 months ago
I agree, two search head clusters can handle the load better!
upvoted 0 times
...
Denae
8 months ago
Option B seems like the best choice for scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nana
9 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the differences between clusters and single search heads. I thought option A could work, but now I’m leaning towards option C after reviewing the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
9 months ago
I practiced a similar question, and I think having separate clusters for ITSI and ES could help with managing the KPIs better. So, option B seems reasonable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Francine
9 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like having a single search head cluster for both ITSI and ES could lead to performance issues. Maybe option C isn't ideal?
upvoted 0 times
...
Juliann
9 months ago
I remember we discussed the importance of scalability, especially with such a high volume of data. I think option B might be the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Whitney
9 months ago
I'm leaning towards option B - two search head clusters, one for ITSI and one for ES. That way, each component can be scaled and optimized independently to handle the respective workloads. Trying to cram both ITSI and ES onto a single search head cluster might not be the best approach given the scale.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sol
9 months ago
Okay, let's see. With over 200 KPIs for ITSI and 1TB of data per day for ES, that's a significant amount of data and workload. I'm thinking a single search head might not be able to handle that, so a search head cluster is probably the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lauran
9 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question is asking about the overall topology, but it's also mentioning specific details like the number of KPIs and data volume. I'll need to think through how those factors impact the architecture.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carissa
9 months ago
This looks like a pretty straightforward Splunk architecture question. I think the key is to consider the scale and performance requirements mentioned in the prompt.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carman
9 months ago
Okay, I've got this. The question is asking for a solution to run containerized apps without installing them on the session hosts. That means we need a way to package and deploy the apps in a containerized format. MSIX app packages seem like the logical choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Titus
9 months ago
I remember studying about encryption for protecting sensitive data, it seems like the most secure method we discussed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malcom
10 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about data privacy and security. I'll carefully read through the options and think about which one best fits the description of improper PII disclosure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ciara
1 year ago
Clearly option C is the way to go. I mean, who needs performance or scalability when you can just cram everything onto one search head cluster? It'll be fine, right? *nervous laughter*
upvoted 0 times
Hyman
1 year ago
Yeah, option C seems risky. It's better to separate the workloads to ensure a more stable and efficient deployment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenia
1 year ago
I agree, having dedicated search head clusters for each application will prevent any performance issues that may arise from overloading a single search head.
upvoted 0 times
...
Derrick
1 year ago
I think option B is the best choice. Having separate search head clusters for ITSI and ES will ensure better performance and scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kate
1 year ago
I'm with Alfred on this one. Two search head clusters is the way to go. It's the only option that ensures you can scale and handle the data load without everything grinding to a halt.
upvoted 0 times
Nadine
1 year ago
Yeah, I think splitting up the search head clusters is the way to go to ensure everything runs smoothly with that amount of data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daryl
1 year ago
I think having separate search head clusters for ITSI and ES makes the most sense in terms of scalability and performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Danilo
1 year ago
I agree with you, having two search head clusters is definitely the best option for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Peggy
1 year ago
Oh man, option D is just begging for trouble. One search head handling both ITSI and ES? That's like trying to fit an elephant and a giraffe in a Smart car. Not happening!
upvoted 0 times
...
Alfred
1 year ago
Two search head clusters, one for each, is definitely the way to go. You don't want to risk overloading a single search head with that kind of data volume. Separating them is the smart move.
upvoted 0 times
Christiane
1 year ago
Two search head clusters, one for each, is definitely the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margret
1 year ago
B) Two search head clusters, one for ITSI and one for ES.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vilma
1 year ago
A) Two search heads, one for ITSI and one for ES.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Frederica
1 year ago
Choosing a single search head with both ITSI and ES installed seems like a recipe for disaster with that much data. I'd go with option B to keep them separated for better scalability and performance.
upvoted 0 times
Millie
1 year ago
Yeah, it's important to keep them separated to avoid any performance issues with that much data being processed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stanford
1 year ago
I agree, having separate search head clusters for ITSI and ES would definitely help with scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Queen
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe option C is more efficient as it allows for easier management of both ITSI and ES on a single search head cluster.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nelida
1 year ago
I agree with Ty, having separate search head clusters for ITSI and ES makes sense for scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ty
1 year ago
I think option B is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel