Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - 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 Exam 5V0-22.23 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:

Submit Cancel
Natalie
1 months ago
Rack failure? More like rack failure party! *laughs* But seriously, A or D are the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Ardella
1 days ago
User 1: Rack failure party? *laughs* Definitely go with option A.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Thora
1 months 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 months 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
Loren
7 days ago
D) Distribute servers across at least three different racks and configure three fault domains
upvoted 0 times
...
Levi
20 days ago
A) Distribute servers across at least two different racks and configure two fault domains
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rebecka
2 months 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
5 days 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
11 days 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
16 days 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
2 months 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 months ago
User 4: Definitely, minimizing the impact of a single rack failure is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Patria
1 months ago
User 3: That way, we can ensure data availability even if one rack fails.
upvoted 0 times
...
Michell
1 months ago
User 2: I agree, distributing servers across two racks and configuring two fault domains sounds like a good plan.
upvoted 0 times
...
Graciela
2 months ago
User 1: I think option A is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lashawna
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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