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

Nutanix Exam NCP-US Topic 1 Question 34 Discussion

Actual exam question for Nutanix's NCP-US exam
Question #: 34
Topic #: 1
[All NCP-US Questions]

Which scenario is causing the alert and need to be addressed to allow the entities to be protected?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

The scenario that is causing the alert and needs to be addressed to allow the entities to be protected is that one or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group may have been deleted. A Consistency Group is a logical grouping of VMs or Volume Groups that are protected together by a Protection Policy. A Protection Policy is a set of rules that defines how often snapshots are taken, how long they are retained, and where they are replicated for disaster recovery purposes. If one or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group are deleted, the Protection Policy will fail to protect them and generate an alert with the code AI303551 -- VolumeGroupProtectionFailed.Reference:Nutanix Volumes Administration Guide, page 29; Nutanix Volumes Troubleshooting Guide


Contribute your Thoughts:

Victor
2 months ago
I'm going with C. Anything involving timestamps and clusters makes me nervous, so I'd want to get that sorted out right away.
upvoted 0 times
Kenny
1 months ago
Ernie: Definitely, let's make sure everything is in sync.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ira
2 months ago
Should we check the clusters to see if the timestamps match up?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ernie
2 months ago
Agreed, that could cause some serious problems if not addressed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sommer
2 months ago
I think C is the issue. Timestamps need to be consistent between clusters.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Adolph
3 months ago
Haha, this exam is really testing our knowledge of consistency groups and recovery plans. I bet the instructor is enjoying watching us all struggle with this one!
upvoted 0 times
Elenore
1 months ago
D) One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group contains state metadata
upvoted 0 times
...
Jean
2 months ago
C) The logical timestamp for one or more of the Volume Groups is not consistent between clusters
upvoted 0 times
...
Alfreda
2 months ago
B) One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group may have been deleted
upvoted 0 times
...
Odette
2 months ago
A) One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group is part of multiple Recovery Plans configured with a Witness.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rachael
3 months ago
I think option D is also a valid concern, state metadata in VMs can impact entity protection.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aja
3 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure. Option D about the state metadata also seems plausible. Maybe it's a trick question and there's more than one right answer?
upvoted 0 times
...
Isabella
3 months ago
I agree with Lucy. The logical timestamp issue is the most likely scenario causing the alert based on the options provided.
upvoted 0 times
Marjory
3 months ago
C) The logical timestamp for one or more of the Volume Groups is not consistent between clusters.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsey
3 months ago
A) One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group is part of multiple Recovery Plans configured with a Witness.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Cheryl
3 months ago
I believe option C is the problem, inconsistency in logical timestamps can lead to data protection issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pamela
3 months ago
I agree with Felix, having multiple Recovery Plans with a Witness can cause issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lucy
3 months ago
Option C seems like the correct answer here. If the logical timestamp is not consistent, it could definitely cause an alert and need to be addressed.
upvoted 0 times
Lauran
2 months ago
C) The logical timestamp for one or more of the Volume Groups is not consistent between clusters
upvoted 0 times
...
Regenia
3 months ago
B) One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group may have been deleted
upvoted 0 times
...
Moon
3 months ago
I agree, inconsistency in logical timestamps can lead to issues with data protection.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brendan
3 months ago
Option C seems like the correct answer here. If the logical timestamp is not consistent, it could definitely cause an alert and need to be addressed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
3 months ago
A) One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group is part of multiple Recovery Plans configured with a Witness.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Felix
3 months ago
I think the scenario causing the alert is option A.
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