Free NVIDIA NCP-AIN Actual Exam Questions

It’s A. The LRH is called local because it routes traffic within the local subnet, not just one link. So it covers multiple links in the subnet, which fits better than options C or D.

B tbh, I don’t think it’s about routing or just a local link. The LRH includes LIDs which identify devices within the local subnet, so it’s kind of like an address for local communication. That makes option B make more sense since it’s tied to the subnet's local addressing rather than just a single link or general routing.

Maybe B and D? I know /etc/network is definitely needed, but /etc/mix sounds like it might hold some Spectrum-X specific configs, so could be important too. Definitely not all of /etc though.

Makes sense to skip C since it’s way too broad and could mess with unrelated settings. D looks suspiciously niche, so A and B seem the safest bets. A, B

C, since BlueField DPUs offload security tasks directly from the CPU to protect data.

Not B, since Magnum IO focuses more on accelerating data movement rather than directly handling privacy or security. BlueField DPUs (C) seem better suited for managing secure data access and protection in this case.

B/D? The "to" connector in B seems more explicit for linking ports, but D’s use of "eth" matches typical Ethernet port naming. The dash in D looks cleaner though, so both have solid points.

It’s D for me. The question specifies port 1 and port 41 which aligns better with eth1 and eth41 naming rather than swp which usually starts at 0 or has different numbering. Also, the dash syntax looks cleaner and more typical for defining links in many config contexts. The quotes around device and port names are consistent too. B’s use of “to” feels off since the question syntax example hints at a dash (-) for linking. So D fits the style and naming conventions more naturally here.

A/B? I’m not sure about NVIEW or UFM being right here. NVIEW feels more like a monitoring tool but not necessarily for telemetry data gathering, and UFM is usually about management and fabric insights rather than detailed telemetry. NetQ (C) definitely sounds like the best fit for telemetry, but if the question is super specific about types of data, I guess you could argue BCM (D) if it meant low-level hardware stats. Still, C seems most aligned with gathering broad telemetry.

C. NetQ is designed for network-wide telemetry and visibility, which matches the question better than BCM that’s hardware-focused. It’s way more about real-time data across the network.

A/C? The RDMA Shared Device Plugin (A) is what actually enables GPU RDMA resource sharing, but without the OFED driver (C) providing the protocol stack, it won’t function properly. Both are key but for different layers.

C/A? OFED drivers are essential since they provide the RDMA protocol stack needed for high-speed communication, so even if A manages resources, C underpins the whole RDMA functionality.

C. It’s not just about GPU communication; rail-optimized topology also keeps traffic localized, which helps avoid congestion and maintains low latency as you scale up. Options A and D don’t address these key AI workload needs.

C for sure, it directly targets GPU communication which is key for AI training.

I don't think A fits since CollNet isn't the same as SHARP, so D and maybe C? D

Probably D and A. D looks like it’s specifically for SHARP auto initialization, which fits the question perfectly. A seems right because enabling CollNet is often linked with SHARP aggregation in NCCL setups, even if it’s not exactly the same tech. B is out since CollNet and SHARP are different, and C doesn’t seem related at all. So the combo of A and D makes the most sense from what I’ve seen.

Yeah, C sounds right since Host Agent and Enterprise Platform don’t really handle advanced analytics. Cyber-AI Platform (C) is the one designed for security threat detection and failure prediction.

C/D? C seems right for analytics and security, but the Telemetry Platform also collects a lot of data that could be used for predicting failures. Still, C fits better for security focus.

A/C? Flow telemetry (A) helps track traffic paths directly, while application telemetry (C) ties issues to the app layer, both useful for root cause. Behavioral (B) feels less direct for pinpointing specific server/app problems.

I’m going with A here. Flow telemetry makes sense since it provides real-time insights about traffic between devices, which can help pinpoint where issues originate. It’s more immediate than behavioral patterns and complements the switch and DOCA data well. Also, since they mention proactive identification, flow data would give clear signals on server or app-level bottlenecks early on. So, A feels like the best fit from a network ops standpoint.

It’s C, because ACLs directly restrict traffic and work on all models regardless of VRF support.

Maybe C here—ACLs can tightly control who talks to whom, so even if full VRF isn’t supported, you get decent isolation by blocking unwanted traffic between departments.

Option D is the clear choice because DGX SuperPOD is built specifically for scaling massive AI workloads on-premises. The others are more geared toward cloud or smaller environments.

Not B, because DGX Cloud focuses more on hybrid cloud solutions rather than pure on-premise performance. So D still makes the most sense for large-scale, dedicated AI compute power on-site.

Maybe D is the way to go since it gives a quick look at ib0’s link state without needing to guess device names, which is handy for basic status checks.

It’s A for me. While B needs you to know the exact device name and C is a bit outdated since ifconfig is less commonly used now, A actually lists all RDMA devices on the node which helps confirm whether the InfiniBand hardware is detected at all before digging deeper. It’s a good first step to verify the presence and status of any InfiniBand devices without guessing interface names. Plus, it works well alongside other commands once you know what devices are there.

A Using SSH and the 'install' command is the normal way to do it, plus you avoid powering down or using insecure Telnet. The other options either disrupt the fabric or use outdated methods.

B tbh, powering off switches for upgrades is rarely done these days—it risks hardware issues. The SSH method in A is standard practice, so B seems outdated or unsafe for MLNX-OS upgrades.

B, since nvidia-smi and tcpdump don't handle physical link diagnostics.

B. nvidia-smi is mostly for GPU stuff and tcpdump only captures network packets, so mlxlink is clearly the tool that works on the physical InfiniBand layer to check link issues.