Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25

- Free Preparation Discussions

Docker Exam DCA Topic 7 Question 91 Discussion

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium DCA Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Barbra

4 months ago

Haha, this question is like asking if a single parachute can support an entire skydiving team. No way, Jose! B is the only sane answer here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Delbert

4 months ago

This is a classic case of 'too many cooks in the kitchen'. You need a balance, not just throwing more managers at the problem. B is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

Rose

3 months ago

B is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alisha

3 months ago

B

upvoted 0 times

...

Yoko

3 months ago

A

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Franklyn

4 months ago

B all the way. Gotta have more managers to spread the load and keep things running smoothly. One's just asking for trouble.

upvoted 0 times

Gail

4 months ago

B all the way. Gotta have more managers to spread the load and keep things running smoothly. One's just asking for trouble.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ernest

4 months ago

B

upvoted 0 times

...

Carman

4 months ago

A

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Ronny

5 months ago

Hmm, I don't know. Doesn't sound very robust to me. I'd want at least three manager nodes to handle failures properly.

upvoted 0 times

Yolando

3 months ago

Yes, I agree. Having at least three manager nodes would be a better configuration for fault tolerance.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lorrine

3 months ago

I think we definitely need more manager nodes to achieve fault tolerance in the swarm.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lili

3 months ago

I agree, having only one manager node for two worker nodes doesn't seem very reliable.

upvoted 0 times

...

Arlette

3 months ago

Yes, I also believe that having at least three manager nodes would be a better solution for handling failures.

upvoted 0 times

...

Odelia

3 months ago

I think we definitely need more manager nodes to achieve fault tolerance in the swarm.

upvoted 0 times

...

Avery

4 months ago

I agree, having only one manager node for two worker nodes doesn't seem very reliable.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Fidelia

5 months ago

I agree with Huey. Having one manager node for two worker nodes can provide fault tolerance by spreading the workload and reducing the chances of failure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Huey

5 months ago

I think it could work. Having multiple worker nodes can help distribute the load and reduce the risk of a single point of failure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Belen

5 months ago

One manager node for two workers? That's like having one traffic cop for a whole highway intersection. Definitely a big no-no for fault tolerance!

upvoted 0 times

Jolanda

4 months ago

One manager node for two workers? That's like having one traffic cop for a whole highway intersection. Definitely a big no-no for fault tolerance!

upvoted 0 times

...

Audra

4 months ago

B) No

upvoted 0 times

...

Miriam

4 months ago

A) Yes

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Pearline

5 months ago

I'm not sure. It might depend on the workload and the specific setup.

upvoted 0 times

...

Donette

6 months ago

Do you think one manager node for two worker nodes will achieve fault tolerance?

upvoted 0 times

...

az-700 pass4success az-104 200-301 200-201 cissp 350-401 350-201 350-501 350-601 350-801 350-901 az-720 az-305 pl-300

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77