data centers, the customer relayed the following information:
* Highest possible mitigation during a host failure in terms of capacity.
* A constraint in this year's IT budget.
What should the architect recommend?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium 5V0-21.21 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
Performance services and IOinsight Metrics used for performance analysis. Operation reserve for internal VSAN operations. https://blogs.vmware.com/virtualblocks/2020/09/24/effective-capacity-management-with-vsan-7-update-1/
26 comments · newest first
TO
Toshia
3 days ago
Option D is interesting, but only two nodes might not provide enough capacity.
JO
Joesph
8 days ago
Option C seems excessive. Six nodes? That’s way over budget!
MA
Margart
13 days ago
I agree with Domitila. A minimum of three nodes is a good balance.
KA
Kate
18 days ago
But we have a budget constraint. Four nodes in option B might be too much.
DO
Domitila
23 days ago
I think option A is the best. Three nodes should cover the host failure well.
TO
Tonette
28 days ago
A is straightforward and meets the requirements without breaking the bank.
RO
Roxane
1 month ago
I feel B is risky. We can't overspend this year.
CL
Clorinda
1 month ago
A minimum of three nodes is a solid choice for reliability.
EL
Elenore
1 month ago
Option D is too limited. Two nodes won't handle much.
LO
Louvenia
2 months ago
I agree with A. It balances capacity and cost effectively.
RO
Rolande
2 months ago
Option C seems overkill. Six nodes? Not feasible with our budget.
KR
Kristofer
2 months ago
But we have a budget constraint. Four nodes in option B might be too much.
CH
Chantay
2 months ago
I think option A is the best. Three nodes should cover host failures.
AD
Adolph
2 months ago
Wait, are we sure 2 nodes is enough for ROBO?
DA
Daniel
2 months ago
D might be too light on capacity for a host failure.
JE
Jesusita
3 months ago
C seems excessive, 6 nodes? Really?
RE
Ressie
3 months ago
I think B is too much for the budget constraints.
TA
Tamar
3 months ago
Option A sounds solid for host failure!
LU
Luther
3 months ago
I vaguely recall that enabling performance services might require more nodes, but I don't think that's the best option given the budget issue.
MI
Ming
3 months ago
I feel like we practiced a similar question where 4 nodes were recommended, but I can't remember the specifics about the budget constraints.
IO
Iola
4 months ago
I think enabling operations reserve makes sense for capacity during a host failure, but I can't recall if 3 nodes is enough.
FL
Floyd
4 months ago
I remember we discussed the importance of having enough nodes for redundancy, but I'm not sure if 3 or 4 is the right number for this scenario.
LA
Lavonda
4 months ago
I vaguely remember that performance services require more nodes, but I don't think that's the priority here with the budget issue.
TE
Tequila
5 months ago
I feel like we practiced a similar question where budget constraints were a factor, and I think 4 nodes might be too much given the budget.
AM
Amber
6 months ago
I think enabling operations reserve makes sense for capacity during a host failure, but I can't recall if 3 nodes is enough for that.
CA
Caprice
6 months ago
I remember we discussed the importance of having enough nodes for redundancy, but I'm not sure if 3 or 4 is the right number here.