Free Updated Cisco 300-610 Actual Exam Questions - Question 10 Discussion
daily operational tasks of creating service profile templates. The operations team is unfamiliar with
programming languages and must have a solution that is written in an easy-to-read and declarative
manner. The operations team also requires the tool to be flexible enough to support the creation of
custom modules. The development team is familiar with the Python programming language and can
develop these custom modules for the operations team. Which tool meets these requirements?
A imo, since it’s YAML-based and super simple for ops folks to pick up, plus Python lets devs build custom stuff. Puppet and Chef usually need more coding know-how and aren’t as straightforward for non-programmers.
Option A is a good pick because Ansible uses simple YAML, which is easier for non-programmers, and Python support means the dev team can add custom modules easily. Puppet and Chef are more complex overall.
It’s A again for me. YAML playbooks in Ansible are really readable for non-coders, which fits the ops team’s needs perfectly. Plus, Ansible’s Python-based custom modules let the dev team build exactly what’s required without messing with complex languages. Puppet or Chef feel too heavy and less intuitive here. The combination of simple syntax and Python flexibility makes Ansible the standout choice for managing UCS service profiles in this scenario.
It’s A for sure because Ansible’s YAML is super clear for non-programmers, and it’s widely used in Cisco UCS automation. Plus, Python integration is smooth for custom extensions, unlike Puppet or Chef.
A also fits because Ansible’s playbooks are simple, and Python modules can extend it easily.
It’s A because Ansible uses YAML, which is easy to read and write, and it supports custom Python modules, fitting both ops and dev teams’ needs well. Anyone else think so?