New Year Sale 2026! 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 6 Question 15 Discussion

Actual exam question for VMware's 5V0-22.23 exam
Question #: 15
Topic #: 6
[All 5V0-22.23 Questions]

An administrator has deployed a new vSAN OSA cluster that contains eight hosts and needs to configure a storage policy for the currently deployed database virtual machines. The requirements state that if two hosts in the vSAN OSA cluster fail, all virtual machines are unaffected.

Which RAID configuration must the administrator use in this storage policy to achieve the best performance for the database virtual machines?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Paris at Apr 08, 2024, 03:13 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
Erick
3 months ago
Surprised they didn't mention performance trade-offs with RAID-6!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsey
3 months ago
Nah, RAID-0 is not safe for this setup.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alishia
3 months ago
Wait, RAID-5 could work too, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Cathern
4 months ago
I agree, RAID-6 offers that extra protection!
upvoted 0 times
...
Helaine
4 months ago
RAID-6 is the way to go for two host failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daniel
4 months ago
I practiced a similar question, and I believe RAID-6 is the safest option for this scenario since it can tolerate two failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vinnie
4 months ago
RAID-0 offers great performance, but it doesn't provide any redundancy, so I don't think that's the right choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebbeca
4 months ago
I think RAID-5 might be a good option too, but it only handles one host failure. I need to double-check if it meets the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karan
5 months ago
I remember that RAID-6 provides double parity, which should help with the two-host failure requirement, but I'm not sure if it's the best for performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Makeda
5 months ago
Based on the requirements, RAID-6 is definitely the way to go. It can handle two host failures, which is exactly what the question is asking for. Plus, the performance should be better than RAID-5 for a database workload.
upvoted 0 times
...
Naomi
5 months ago
I'm a bit confused on the differences between RAID-5 and RAID-6. Can someone help me understand which one would be better for this scenario?
upvoted 0 times
...
Marion
5 months ago
I'm pretty confident that RAID-6 is the way to go here. It provides the necessary redundancy to handle two host failures, and it should give better performance than RAID-5 since it has less write overhead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lilli
5 months ago
Okay, let's see. The question says we need to handle two host failures, so that rules out RAID-0 since that doesn't provide any redundancy. RAID-5 and RAID-6 both seem like they could work, but I'm not sure which one would give the best performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jina
5 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the requirements and the RAID options to determine the best performance for the database VMs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denny
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I'll need to think through the different approaches and make sure I understand the security implications of each option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josephine
5 months ago
Okay, I've got this. Local governments are required to use certified public accounting firms to audit their financial statements. That's definitely the right answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronny
5 months ago
I'm a bit confused about the `bind2nd` function. I thought it would bind the second parameter of the `Add` operator, but I can't quite recall how that affects the output.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dahlia
2 years ago
Actually, RAID-1 could be a good choice to ensure high availability without sacrificing too much performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Miriam
2 years ago
I'm leaning towards RAID-6 as well, as it provides better data protection.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nada
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe RAID-5 would be a better option for performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynelle
2 years ago
I think we should go with RAID-6 for better performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Garry
2 years ago
Hah, you guys are all missing the obvious answer here. It's RAID-5, duh! It gives you the redundancy you need without taking too much of a hit on performance. Although, I do have to admit, I'm kind of hoping they throw in a question about nested ESXi hosts next, that's my specialty.
upvoted 0 times
Vincenza
2 years ago
RAID-10 might be a good compromise between performance and redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawna
2 years ago
I think RAID-6 would be a better option for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paola
2 years ago
No way, RAID-5 is not the best choice for performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Teri
2 years ago
Ooh, maybe it's a trick question and the answer is none of the above? I mean, with vSAN you can just use the built-in storage policies to get the redundancy you need, right? No need to mess with RAID at all. But then again, I could be overthinking this...
upvoted 0 times
...
Justine
2 years ago
RAID-0? Are you out of your mind? This is a mission-critical database we're talking about, not some cat video hosting service. I think RAID-6 is the way to go, it's the perfect balance of performance and fault tolerance. Although, I do have to wonder why they're not asking about other vSAN features like witness hosts or stretched clusters...
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashlyn
2 years ago
Are you guys serious? RAID-1? That's so old-school! This is a vSAN cluster, we've got to think outside the box here. I say RAID-0 all the way - maximum performance, who needs redundancy anyway? Yolo, am I right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Carissa
2 years ago
Hmm, I'm not so sure about RAID-6. Wouldn't that sacrifice a bit of performance since you're writing to more disks? I'm thinking RAID-1 might be the way to go here. It's not as space-efficient, but it should give you the redundancy you need without taking too much of a hit on speed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorrie
2 years ago
Whoa, this question is a real brain-teaser! I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the best RAID configuration to keep those database VMs up and running even if two hosts go down. I guess RAID-6 would be the way to go, since it can handle the loss of two disks, right?
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel