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

- Free Preparation Discussions

NetApp Exam NS0-521 Topic 7 Question 1 Discussion

Actual exam question for NetApp's NS0-521 exam

Question #: 1
Topic #: 7

[All NS0-521 Questions]

A customer wants to Implement a NetApp AFF system at a small remote site that has two ESXi servers that require SAN storage from the NetApp ONTAP based storage system. The servers will be directly connected, because the customer does not want to deploy any switches.

Which protocol should the customer use?

AFCP

BNFS

CFCoE

DiSCSI

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: D

For a small remote site with two ESXi servers requiring SAN storage and no switches, the recommended protocol is iSCSI. iSCSI allows for direct connectivity between the servers and the NetApp ONTAP storage system using standard Ethernet infrastructure, which is suitable for environments without Fibre Channel switches.

For more information, see:

NetApp iSCSI Configuration Guide

by Marcos at Aug 04, 2024, 11:55 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium NS0-521 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Elfriede

3 months ago

I believe iSCSI would be the most cost-effective solution for the customer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cristal

3 months ago

But FCP provides better performance for block-level storage.

upvoted 0 times

...

Han

3 months ago

I disagree, NFS would be a better option for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Noel

3 months ago

Hmm, iSCSI does sound like the winner. Although I'm picturing the customer trying to plug their servers directly into the NetApp system with just a couple of ethernet cables. That's going to be an interesting setup!

upvoted 0 times

...

Carrol

3 months ago

iSCSI all the way! It's like the Switzerland of storage protocols - neutral, efficient, and gets the job done.

upvoted 0 times

Wenona

3 months ago

Using iSCSI will make the implementation smooth and efficient.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ettie

3 months ago

I agree, iSCSI is a solid choice for direct connections.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elvis

3 months ago

iSCSI is definitely the way to go for this setup.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Cristal

3 months ago

I think the customer should use FCP.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chaya

4 months ago

I would go with iSCSI, it's easy to implement and cost-effective for small remote sites.

upvoted 0 times

...

Meghann

4 months ago

I think FCoE could also be a good choice, as it provides low latency and high bandwidth.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sonia

4 months ago

I disagree, I believe NFS would be a better option for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lashawnda

4 months ago

I'm voting for iSCSI too. FCP would require extra hardware, and FCoE is a bit overkill for a small remote site.

upvoted 0 times

Antonette

3 months ago

Agreed, iSCSI is the most cost-effective option for direct connection.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rashad

4 months ago

iSCSI is definitely the way to go for this setup.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Janey

4 months ago

iSCSI seems like the obvious choice here. No need for switches, and it works with ESXi servers. Straight to the point.

upvoted 0 times

Ira

3 months ago

C: iSCSI is the clear choice here. It's easy to implement and works well with ESXi servers. The customer will have a smooth setup with this protocol.

upvoted 0 times

...

Floyd

3 months ago

B: Agreed, iSCSI is the most suitable protocol for this setup. It's simple and efficient for connecting the ESXi servers to the storage system.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jutta

4 months ago

A: iSCSI is definitely the way to go in this situation. It's perfect for directly connecting the servers to the NetApp AFF system.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Mabelle

4 months ago

I think the customer should use FCP.

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