Haha, I love these drive failure questions. They're like the database equivalent of 'If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?' Anyway, I think C is the right answer.
Oh, come on! This is a no-brainer. It's obviously C. You can't just keep running queries and transactions if a drive goes down. That's just asking for data loss and system instability.
Hmm, I'm not so sure. I'd go with D. The existing queries and transactions might finish, but new ones would be blocked until the drive is replaced. Seems like the most logical scenario.
I disagree, I believe D is the correct statement. Running queries and transactions will finish, but new transactions will not be allowed till drive is changed.
I think B is the right choice. Queries and transactions should not be interrupted in the event of a drive failure. The system should be able to handle that seamlessly.
Option C seems to be the correct answer. Queries and transactions would definitely be interrupted if a drive fails, as there is no drive mirroring to ensure data redundancy.
Han
2 months agoLaurel
2 months agoJerry
21 days agoEladia
1 months agoDortha
1 months agoMiles
2 months agoLynelle
1 months agoKanisha
1 months agoSylvia
1 months agoJulio
2 months agoRia
2 months agoDevora
2 months agoJulio
3 months agoQuentin
3 months agoMargot
2 months agoAlise
2 months agoAllene
2 months ago