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 5V0-22.23 Exam - Topic 1 Question 33 Discussion

An administrator has 24 physical servers that need to be configured with vSAN. The administrator needs to ensure that a single rack failure is not going to affect the data availability. The number of racks used should be minimized.What has to be done and configured to achieve this goal?
C) Enable deduplication and compression
A) Distribute servers across at least two different racks and configure two fault domains
B) Configure disk groups with a minimum of four capacity disks in each server and distribute them across four racks
D) Distribute servers across at least three different racks and configure three fault domains

VMware 5V0-22.23 Exam - Topic 1 Question 33 Discussion

Actual exam question for VMware's 5V0-22.23 exam
Question #: 33
Topic #: 1
[All 5V0-22.23 Questions]

An administrator has 24 physical servers that need to be configured with vSAN. The administrator needs to ensure that a single rack failure is not going to affect the data availability. The number of racks used should be minimized.

What has to be done and configured to achieve this goal?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Rory at Oct 18, 2024, 06:03 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 5V0-22.23 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Tiara
6 months ago
Definitely not C, deduplication won't help with rack failures!
upvoted 0 times
...
Glory
6 months ago
A is correct, but I wonder if three racks might be overkill.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corinne
7 months ago
Surprised that B suggests four racks, seems excessive for just one failure!
upvoted 0 times
...
Toi
7 months ago
I think D is better, three racks provide more safety.
upvoted 0 times
...
Colette
7 months ago
Option A is the way to go! Two fault domains are key for redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laquita
7 months ago
I recall that distributing servers across multiple racks is crucial, but I’m not sure if we need three fault domains or just two.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jerilyn
8 months ago
I practiced a similar question where we had to configure fault domains. I feel like option A is the right approach for minimizing rack usage while ensuring availability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gladys
8 months ago
I'm a bit unsure, but I think option D might be overkill. Three racks seem excessive when two could work.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellsworth
8 months ago
I remember studying about fault domains and how they help with data availability. I think we need at least two racks for redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kelvin
8 months ago
This is a good one. I remember from the vSAN training that you want to minimize the number of racks used while still protecting against a single rack failure. I'm pretty confident option A is the way to go here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Douglass
8 months ago
I'm a little confused by the options here. Distributing servers across four racks seems like overkill, and I'm not sure how deduplication and compression are relevant. I think I'll focus on the rack and fault domain requirements to narrow it down.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dominic
8 months ago
Okay, I've got this. The question is asking to minimize the number of racks used, so I'd go with option A and distribute the servers across two racks with two fault domains. That should meet the requirements without over-complicating the configuration.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nana
8 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know vSAN has fault domains, but I'm not sure if I need to configure multiple fault domains or just distribute the servers across racks. I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dortha
8 months ago
This looks like a straightforward vSAN configuration question. I think the key is to minimize the number of racks used while ensuring a single rack failure doesn't affect data availability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Natalie
1 year ago
Rack failure? More like rack failure party! *laughs* But seriously, A or D are the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Fanny
11 months ago
Lashanda: Exactly, minimizing the number of racks used while maintaining data availability is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dexter
11 months ago
User 3: Yeah, that will ensure data availability even if a single rack fails.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashanda
11 months ago
User 2: Agreed, distributing servers across at least two different racks and configuring two fault domains is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ardella
12 months ago
User 1: Rack failure party? *laughs* Definitely go with option A.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Thora
1 year ago
Option C? Deduplication and compression? What does that have to do with rack-level redundancy? I think the answers are missing the point here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yoko
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about Option B. Four capacity disks per server and four racks seems like overkill for this scenario. A and D seem more appropriate.
upvoted 0 times
Thaddeus
11 months ago
I agree, Option B does seem like overkill. A and D are more suitable for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Loren
12 months ago
D) Distribute servers across at least three different racks and configure three fault domains
upvoted 0 times
...
Levi
1 year ago
A) Distribute servers across at least two different racks and configure two fault domains
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rebecka
1 year ago
I'm leaning towards Option D. Three racks and three fault domains should provide even better protection against data loss in case of a rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
Velda
12 months ago
User 3: Yeah, it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to data availability. Option D seems like the most reliable choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malinda
12 months ago
User 2: Agreed, that setup would definitely help minimize the risk of data loss in case of a rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Franklyn
1 year ago
User 1: I think Option D is the way to go. Three racks and three fault domains sound like a solid plan.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lorean
1 year ago
Option A seems like the most logical choice here. Distributing servers across at least two racks and configuring two fault domains should ensure that a single rack failure doesn't affect data availability.
upvoted 0 times
Carin
1 year ago
User 4: Definitely, minimizing the impact of a single rack failure is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Patria
1 year ago
User 3: That way, we can ensure data availability even if one rack fails.
upvoted 0 times
...
Michell
1 year ago
User 2: I agree, distributing servers across two racks and configuring two fault domains sounds like a good plan.
upvoted 0 times
...
Graciela
1 year ago
User 1: I think option A is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lashawna
1 year ago
I'm not sure, but I think option D) Distribute servers across at least three different racks and configure three fault domains might also work to minimize the impact of a rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dominga
1 year ago
I agree with Sunshine. By distributing servers across different racks and configuring fault domains, we can ensure data availability even in case of a rack failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sunshine
1 year ago
I think the answer is A) Distribute servers across at least two different racks and configure two fault domains.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel