Free VMware 3V0-32.23 Actual Exam Questions - Question 12 Discussion
constraints, and recommendations were gathered:
Enable Continuous Availability
Monitor two physical locations
The sizing guide recommends deploying 5 analytics nodes
What are two design considerations for the analytics node deployment? (Choose two.)
C/E makes sense since the question mentions two physical locations—witness instances help avoid split-brain in multi-site setups, and fault domains separate failures by location. Also, the sizing guide says 5 nodes, so adding a sixth node (A) isn’t really supported here. High Availability (B) is important but usually implied when witnesses and fault domains are used, so not the direct design considerations. Extra Large Nodes (D) aren’t necessarily mandated either.
Maybe B and E, since HA and fault domains are crucial for multi-site setups.
It’s C and E because witnesses stop split-brain, and fault domains separate sites.
C/E? Witness instances prevent split-brain, which sounds important for two physical locations, and fault domains would naturally separate the hardware. HA is probably assumed but not explicitly required here.
B imo, because HA is key here, and E since fault domains help separate sites properly.
B/E, since HA and fault domains fit the multi-site setup requirements.
Maybe B and C. Enabling High Availability is a must, and witness instances help prevent split-brain issues between the two sites. Two fault domains could work too, but I think witnesses are more critical here.
Seems like the 5 nodes are baseline, so a sixth node (A) might be needed for quorum or failover, especially with two locations involved. Also, two witness instances (C) could be necessary to monitor split-brain scenarios.
B imo, enabling High Availability fits continuous availability needs. E also sounds right since fault domains help distribute nodes across the two sites for resilience.
Maybe E since fault domains help with site separation and availability. Also guessing B because enabling High Availability makes sense for continuous uptime across locations.
A, C. Adding a sixth analytics node (A) makes sense since the sizing guide suggests 5, and you’d want an extra for resilience in a two-site setup. Also, two witness instances (C) are important to manage quorum across physical locations, which helps avoid split-brain scenarios. This seems more critical than just enabling high availability (B), which is usually implied anyway. Fault domains (E) help but aren’t always mandatory if witness instances are used correctly.
E imo, fault domains are key for two sites; B also fits for availability.
Good point on B and E, but also considering the sizing guide suggests 5 nodes, adding a sixth (A) could help with failover. So A and E might also be valid here.
B and E make sense; high availability and fault domains fit a two-location setup.
Maybe B and E here. Since they want continuous availability across two physical locations, enabling high availability (B) makes sense to keep things running if one site goes down. Also, creating two fault domains (E) fits with separating resources across those locations to avoid single points of failure. The sizing guide says 5 analytics nodes, so not sure about adding more or needing extra large nodes right away. Seems like the focus should be on availability and fault tolerance options first.