Q: 5
An administrator is protecting an application and its data stored on Volume Groups using Protection
Domains.
During failover tests, all application VMs restore successfully, but the application data is completely
missing.
How can the Protection Domain configuration be adjusted to avoid this issue in the future? (Choose
two.)
Options
Discussion
A and B imo. Without those, the Volume Groups won’t be included in the Protection Domain, so app data doesn’t come back on failover. Saw a similar question in exam reports too, pretty sure that's it.
A and B per Nutanix official guide and labs, these are called out for protecting app data correctly.
B and A imo. Putting VGs in a separate domain (C) is a trap since it won't guarantee the data comes back with the app VMs. App-consistent snapshots (D) help consistency, but not inclusion. Pretty sure from Nutanix best practices.
A B tbh, saw similar in practice tests, both required for VG protection.
A B
Had something like this in a mock. You need "Auto protect related entities" toggled or else VGs aren’t included. Manually adding Volume Groups to Protected Entities also works. Pretty sure these are the two needed.
Had something like this in a mock. You need "Auto protect related entities" toggled or else VGs aren’t included. Manually adding Volume Groups to Protected Entities also works. Pretty sure these are the two needed.
C and D tbh, since separating Volume Groups seems safer than missing data if auto-protect isn't set.
I think it's C and D for this, seen similar combos in the official guide and labs.
A/B, but if the Volume Group was in another app's PD I'd reconsider. Seen weird edge cases like that pop up on practice.
Looks like it's A and B for this one. Those two are the only ways to make sure Volume Groups get included with your Protection Domain, so you don't lose app data during failover. Pretty confident here, but let me know if anyone sees it differently.
Pretty sure A and B, matches guidance in the Nutanix official guide and practice labs.
Be respectful. No spam.
