Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

F5 Networks Exam 301a Topic 2 Question 91 Discussion

Actual exam question for F5 Networks's 301a exam
Question #: 91
Topic #: 2
[All 301a Questions]

Six servers have a varying number of connections that change based on the user load.

Which load balancing method should an LTM Specialist apply to divided the web application traffic to the servers on the relative performance trend?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Contribute your Thoughts:

Moon
4 months ago
I'm feeling lucky with C) Predictive. It's like a crystal ball for load balancing, and who doesn't love a bit of guessing and hoping for the best?
upvoted 0 times
Sabrina
3 months ago
Least Sessions, A) is my choice, let's keep it simple.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laila
3 months ago
I'm going with B) Least Connections, seems like the safest option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Justine
3 months ago
I prefer D) Ratio, it seems more reliable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Caren
3 months ago
I think C) Predictive is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Janae
5 months ago
I hope the answer isn't A) Least Sessions. That would just be the least sessions, not the least connections, which is what the question is asking for. Come on, people, let's use our heads here!
upvoted 0 times
...
Tiffiny
5 months ago
I agree with Wilda, B) Least Connections makes sense for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wilda
5 months ago
I'm gonna go with B) Least Connections. It's a classic load balancing method, and it seems to fit the scenario described in the question.
upvoted 0 times
Ernest
3 months ago
Agreed, it seems like the most suitable option for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Peggie
3 months ago
Yeah, that method makes sense for balancing the varying number of connections.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laila
3 months ago
I think B) Least Connections is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Catherin
3 months ago
I agree, B) Least Connections seems like the most suitable method for this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melodie
4 months ago
I would go with C) Predictive, it seems like the best option for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shantay
4 months ago
I think B) Least Connections is a good choice too.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Wilda
5 months ago
I think B) Least Connections would be the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zack
5 months ago
D) Ratio sounds promising. It could help distribute the traffic based on the relative performance of the servers, which is what the question is asking for.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorean
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm not too sure about this one. The question mentions the servers have varying number of connections, so maybe C) Predictive could be a good option to anticipate the future load.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorinda
5 months ago
I think the answer is B) Least Connections. It seems like the most appropriate method to balance the traffic based on the varying number of connections on the servers.
upvoted 0 times
Shoshana
4 months ago
I think D) Ratio would be more effective in dividing the traffic based on relative performance trend.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chantell
5 months ago
I think D) Ratio could also work well in this situation, considering the varying number of connections on the servers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenda
5 months ago
I agree, B) Least Connections would be the best choice to balance the traffic.
upvoted 0 times
...
Billye
5 months ago
I agree with B) Least Connections. It makes sense to balance based on the number of connections.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lonny
5 months ago
I would go with C) Predictive. It predicts the performance trend and balances the traffic accordingly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chaya
5 months ago
I think the answer is B) Least Connections.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Raul
5 months ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is D) Ratio.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alyce
6 months ago
I think the answer is C) Predictive.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
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