Q: 14
Requirement: Ensure all management components are redundant at the component level.
Which design quality should classify this requirement?
Options
Discussion
C , since redundancy is all about keeping services up even if a component fails. Recoverability usually comes into play when you need to actually restore stuff after an outage. Pretty sure this sticks with VMware's design focus.
Is anyone using just the VMware official design guide or also practice tests for questions like this? Curious which resources hit on design qualities the most, I feel availability gets mixed up with recoverability a lot in these scenarios.
C vs D? Saw something really close to this on a recent practice set, could see an argument for D because of redundancy links to recovery but I'm pretty sure C fits the VMware blueprint better here.
Not all redundancy means recoverability, only when it's about bringing things back after a total loss. This one's strictly C.
Hmm, I would've picked D. Redundancy seems like it ties right into recoverability at the component level.
If the redundancy is built for failover only, then D (recoverability) could apply.
Does D ever apply if the requirement only says "redundant" and not actual restoration steps?
Redundancy at the component level isn't always about disaster recovery but about avoiding downtime in the first place. C
B or D. I keep seeing people pick C, but management redundancy could also help with recoverability. Not convinced it's just C.
C for availability fits best, since component-level redundancy is classic availability design. Not about performance or manageability here. Unless they're hinting at something tricky, I don't see any other option that makes sense. Pretty sure on this but let me know if you see it differently.
Be respectful. No spam.
