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

VMware 5V0-21.21 Exam - Topic 2 Question 84 Discussion

An administrator is planning to deploy workloads on a six node vSAN cluster, and all nodes are distributed equally across three racks.Which action is required to ensure that the workload VMs remain compliant with the default vSAN policy after a complete rack failure?
D) Add an additional rack with two hosts, and configure vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (mirroring).
A) Add an additional rack with two hosts, and configure vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (erasure coding).
B) Add two additional hosts per rack, and configure vSAN with three fault domains and FTT=1.
C) Add an additional host per rack, and configure vSAN with three fault domains and FTT=2.

VMware 5V0-21.21 Exam - Topic 2 Question 84 Discussion

Actual exam question for VMware's 5V0-21.21 exam
Question #: 84
Topic #: 2
[All 5V0-21.21 Questions]

An administrator is planning to deploy workloads on a six node vSAN cluster, and all nodes are distributed equally across three racks.

Which action is required to ensure that the workload VMs remain compliant with the default vSAN policy after a complete rack failure?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

Adding an additional rack with two hosts and configuring vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (mirroring) will ensure that the workload VMs remain compliant with the default vSAN policy after a complete rack failure. This is because FTT=1 (mirroring) will provide the highest level of redundancy and ensure that if one rack fails, the other racks can still provide the necessary data to remain compliant.


by Marylin at Jul 07, 2025, 03:44 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 5V0-21.21 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Domonique
6 months ago
Not sure about D, seems like overkill for just one rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alyce
6 months ago
Adding hosts per rack is key for compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Heike
6 months ago
I think B is the better option here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daryl
6 months ago
Surprised that FTT=1 is even considered for this setup!
upvoted 0 times
...
Larae
6 months ago
FTT=2 is a must for rack failure protection.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adell
7 months ago
I feel like adding an additional rack with two hosts might be the right move, but I’m confused about whether to use erasure coding or mirroring for FTT=1.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yan
7 months ago
If I remember correctly, FTT=2 would provide better protection against rack failures, but I’m not clear on how many fault domains we need for that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salley
7 months ago
I think we practiced a similar question where adding hosts was necessary, but I can't recall if it was about adding hosts per rack or just one additional rack.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kiera
7 months ago
I remember that for vSAN, we need to consider fault domains to maintain compliance, but I'm not sure if FTT=1 or FTT=2 is the right choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Giuseppe
7 months ago
Based on the information provided, I think the answer is Option D. Adding an additional rack with two hosts and configuring vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (mirroring) should ensure the workload VMs remain compliant after a complete rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorothy
8 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the question. The options seem to involve adding additional hosts and configuring fault domains, but I'm not sure which one is the correct action to take. I'll need to review the vSAN concepts again.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janessa
8 months ago
Okay, let me think this through step-by-step. The key is ensuring the workload VMs remain compliant after a complete rack failure. I'll need to evaluate the different options to determine the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindy
8 months ago
This looks like a tricky vSAN configuration question. I'll need to carefully consider the details about the cluster and the default vSAN policy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carey
10 months ago
Haha, this question is like a game of Tetris, trying to figure out the perfect rack configuration. Good thing I'm a master at that game!
upvoted 0 times
Julian
8 months ago
C) Add an additional host per rack, and configure vSAN with three fault domains and FTT=2.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawna
8 months ago
B) Add two additional hosts per rack, and configure vSAN with three fault domains and FTT=1.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tomoko
9 months ago
A) Add an additional rack with two hosts, and configure vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (erasure coding).
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kimbery
10 months ago
I'm not sure, but C could also be a valid option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Colby
10 months ago
I'm leaning towards B, it seems like the most logical choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jordan
10 months ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is D.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kathrine
10 months ago
I'm a bit confused. Why not just add more hosts to each rack instead of a whole new rack? Seems like overkill to me.
upvoted 0 times
Lashandra
9 months ago
User3: Configuring vSAN with fault domains and FTT=1 could help maintain compliance with the default policy after a rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shonda
9 months ago
User2: I think adding an additional rack with two hosts might provide better fault tolerance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elbert
10 months ago
User1: Adding more hosts to each rack could be a good option to consider.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Wilda
10 months ago
I think the answer is A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dulce
11 months ago
Hmm, I'm torn between B and D. But I'm leaning towards D since it specifically mentions mirroring, which seems more robust than erasure coding.
upvoted 0 times
Corazon
9 months ago
Yeah, I agree. It's always good to have that extra level of protection in case of a complete rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rikki
10 months ago
I think D is the better option too. Mirroring provides better redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Carey
11 months ago
C looks good to me. Adding an extra host per rack and configuring vSAN with three fault domains and FTT=2 should do the trick.
upvoted 0 times
...
Doretha
11 months ago
I think the answer is D. Adding an extra rack with two hosts and configuring vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (mirroring) seems like the best way to ensure workload VMs remain compliant after a complete rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
Natalie
10 months ago
Yes, adding an additional rack with two hosts and configuring vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (mirroring) provides better redundancy in case of a complete rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Devon
10 months ago
I see your point, but I still think option D is the best choice to maintain compliance with the default vSAN policy in case of a complete rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodrigo
10 months ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is A. Adding an additional rack with two hosts and configuring vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (erasure coding) would be more effective.
upvoted 0 times
...
Breana
10 months ago
I agree, option D seems like the most reliable choice for maintaining compliance with the default vSAN policy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Isabelle
10 months ago
I think the answer is D. Adding an extra rack with two hosts and configuring vSAN with four fault domains and FTT=1 (mirroring) seems like the best way to ensure workload VMs remain compliant after a complete rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel