Free VMware 2V0-16.25 Actual Exam Questions - Question 9 Discussion

Option C seems more straightforward since rebuilding the secondary node alone should restore the cluster’s health without overcomplicating things. Adding another node might be overkill if not required by the deployment size.

I’m thinking options A and B are less likely since scaling up might not be needed just because one node failed. The cluster should handle node failures if it’s set up right. Between C and D, rebuilding the secondary node (C) seems like the first step to get back to a working state. Adding an extra node (D) feels like overkill unless you’re aiming to improve fault tolerance long-term. So maybe just fix the immediate problem before adding complexity? Could it be that simply restoring the failed node is enough for a healthy cluster?

D adding a node improves fault tolerance beyond just fixing the failed one.

It’s D, adding a node boosts cluster resilience beyond just fixing one failed node.

C/D? Rebuilding the failed secondary node is necessary, but adding an extra node (D) could provide better redundancy and avoid future single points of failure. Just rebuilding (C) might not prevent repeat issues.

I agree with C here. The cluster isn’t necessarily undersized—it’s about fixing the failed secondary node first by rebuilding it to get the cluster healthy again.

D imo, rebuilding and adding another node improves cluster resilience.

This one feels like it's about restoring proper cluster function rather than sizing, so I’d go with C. Rebuilding the secondary node should bring it back online and restore cluster health without needing extra nodes or scaling up. Adding another node like in D sounds more like increasing capacity, which the question doesn’t really imply is needed.

C/D? Rebuilding the secondary node is key, but adding another node could improve redundancy.

I’m thinking that scaling up (A or B) might be overkill if the cluster just went down because one node failed. The question suggests the issue is with the secondary node, so it seems like a rebuild (C) should fix it without having to change the size. Adding more nodes (D) doesn’t sound necessary unless you want more redundancy, but the question is about fixing the current failure. Does anyone see a reason why scaling up would be better here?

Agree with C, rebuilding the secondary node should fix the cluster issue straight up.

Option C, rebuilding the secondary node should restore cluster health without extra scaling.

C Rebuilding the secondary node usually sorts out cluster issues without the need for extra nodes or scaling up, especially since the problem is just a single node failure.

C - rebuilding the secondary is the usual fix, D seems overkill here.