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

VMware Exam 5V0-21.21 Topic 5 Question 66 Discussion

Actual exam question for VMware's 5V0-21.21 exam
Question #: 66
Topic #: 5
[All 5V0-21.21 Questions]

A customer is planning to migrate their physical Microsoft SQL Server clustered workloads to vSAN enabled vSphere clusters.

The following requirements must be met:

* Each MSSQL cluster is made up of 3 nodes

* Highest possible availability against node failures

* Some of the vSAN clusters will only consume storage

What should the architect recommend?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer

Contribute your Thoughts:

Janella
2 months ago
Hold up, what if the architect just recommends a good old-fashioned physical MSSQL cluster? No virtual shenanigans needed! Just kidding, Stretched vSAN Cluster is probably the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Alpha
29 days ago
D: Definitely the way to go for migrating MSSQL clusters to vSAN enabled vSphere clusters.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karima
2 months ago
C: Plus, it can meet the requirements for both storage consumption and availability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tarra
2 months ago
B: Yeah, it provides high availability against node failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elenor
2 months ago
A: Stretched vSAN Cluster sounds like a solid choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Elinore
3 months ago
Haha, vSAN File Services? I don't think that's what they're looking for here. Gotta go with the Stretched vSAN Cluster, it's the most logical choice.
upvoted 0 times
Dortha
2 months ago
C) vSAN Direct
upvoted 0 times
...
Elliott
2 months ago
B) Stretched vSAN Cluster
upvoted 0 times
...
Rusty
2 months ago
A) vSAN iSCSI Target Service
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Julianna
3 months ago
I'm leaning towards the vSAN iSCSI Target Service. It seems like a straightforward way to migrate the physical MSSQL clusters to the vSphere environment.
upvoted 0 times
Claribel
2 months ago
D) vSAN File Services
upvoted 0 times
...
Iluminada
2 months ago
C) vSAN Direct
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisandra
2 months ago
B) Stretched vSAN Cluster
upvoted 0 times
...
Buck
2 months ago
A) vSAN iSCSI Target Service
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Selma
3 months ago
Ooh, vSAN Direct looks interesting! But I'm not sure if it's the right fit for this scenario. Maybe the architect should consider Stretched vSAN Cluster for the best availability.
upvoted 0 times
Gearldine
2 months ago
B: Yeah, vSAN Direct might not be the best fit for this scenario. Stretched vSAN Cluster seems like the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Linwood
3 months ago
A: I agree, Stretched vSAN Cluster would provide the highest availability against node failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lyda
3 months ago
That's a good point, Terina. We should consider the specific requirements of each cluster before making a decision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Justa
3 months ago
Hmm, I think the Stretched vSAN Cluster would be the best option here. It provides the highest availability and can handle the 3-node MSSQL cluster requirement.
upvoted 0 times
Glenna
3 months ago
I think it's a good choice especially for the 3-node MSSQL cluster setup.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elise
3 months ago
Yes, it can definitely meet the requirement for highest availability against node failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marisha
3 months ago
I agree, the Stretched vSAN Cluster seems like the most suitable option for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Terina
3 months ago
I'm not sure, I think option C) vSAN Direct might be a better choice for some of the clusters that only consume storage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elke
3 months ago
I agree with Lyda, a stretched vSAN cluster would provide the highest availability against node failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lyda
4 months ago
I think we should go with option B) Stretched vSAN Cluster.
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