Free VMware 2V0-17.25 Actual Exam Questions - Question 8 Discussion
in service disruption for customers in that region. An administrator is tasked to assess the current
infrastructure and propose a plan to improve resiliency.
Current configuration:
Single-site vSAN Express Storage Architecture (ESA) cluster
12 hosts
Cluster resource utilization (CPU, memory, and storage) is under 30%
Which solution would improve resiliency and minimize service disruption in data center outages with
a recovery point objective (RPO) of zero without requiring additional hosts?
A/B? Option A sounds like a solid way to get real site-level resiliency by moving hosts to another data center, but the question says no additional hosts and doesn’t clarify if the other data center can handle six hosts already. Option B mentions VMware Live Recovery, which isn’t a common term for vSAN features I know, so that might be a red flag or something less standard. Since zero RPO means no data loss, just rearranging hosts within a single site (like fault domains in D) won’t help if the whole site goes down. So I’m stuck between A and B here, though A feels more aligned with multi-site
I’m thinking D might be off here because fault domains help with rack or hardware failure inside one site but don’t protect against a full site outage like a power loss. Since the question says a power outage took down the whole data center, just dividing hosts into fault domains inside the same site won’t stop service disruption or meet zero RPO. The other options seem more focused on multi-site or data redundancy. Anyone else see it that way?
C makes sense here because switching to a 2-failure RAID-1 policy should keep data mirrored within the same site without needing extra hosts, which fits the no additional hardware part. It also keeps the RPO at zero since data is synchronously mirrored. Options involving multiple sites or relocating hosts seem to need more capacity or infrastructure that the question doesn’t confirm is available. D’s fault domains are good for isolating failures, but they don’t help if the whole data center goes down, so zero RPO in that case isn’t guaranteed.
C imo, RAID-1 with 2 failures toleration keeps data locally synced, ensuring zero RPO without new hosts.
D imo, setting up fault domains can help isolate failures within the same site, but it doesn’t really protect against a full site outage or deliver zero RPO. So it doesn’t fully address the main problem here.
Not C, since changing to a 2-failure RAID-1 policy helps with hardware failures but doesn’t protect against site outages or guarantee zero RPO. The main issue is the single-site dependency.
I think A makes the most sense since moving half the hosts to another site with a stretched cluster would improve resiliency and meet the zero RPO without adding hosts.