NCP-US-6.5 Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

Nutanix Files, part of Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), uses File Server Virtual Machines (FSVMs) to manage file services (e.g., SMB, NFS). Each FSVM runs on a node in the Nutanix cluster, and the number of connections per node impacts the resource requirements, particularly memory (RAM), for the FSVMs. The administrator needs to size the memory for a Files instance where each node will handle an average of 4,000 connections.

Sizing Guidelines:

Nutanix provides sizing guidelines for Files deployments based on the number of connections per FSVM (and thus per node, assuming one FSVM per node, which is the default configuration). The memory requirements scale with the number of connections to ensure performance and stability:

The minimum memory per FSVM is 12 GiB (as noted in Question 2), which supports up to 1,000 connections.

For higher connection counts, Nutanix recommends increasing the memory proportionally.

According to Nutanix documentation:

Up to 1,000 connections: 12 GiB RAM per FSVM.

1,000 to 2,000 connections: 24 GiB RAM per FSVM.

2,000 to 4,000 connections: 48 GiB RAM per FSVM.

4,000 to 8,000 connections: 96 GiB RAM per FSVM.

Since the question specifies 4,000 connections per node, and assuming one FSVM per node (standard deployment), the FSVM on each node needs to handle 4,000 connections. Based on the sizing guidelines:

4,000 connections fall into the 4,000 to 8,000 range, requiring 96 GiB RAM per FSVM.

Since each node hosts one FSVM, this translates to 96 GiB RAM per node dedicated to the FSVM.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (32 GiB RAM per node): Incorrect. 32 GiB RAM per node is sufficient for up to 2,000 connections (24 GiB for the FSVM, plus some overhead), but it is insufficient for 4,000 connections, which require 96 GiB.

Option B (40 GiB RAM per node): Incorrect. 40 GiB RAM per node is still too low for 4,000 connections, as it falls short of the 96 GiB recommended for this connection range.

Option C (96 GiB RAM per node): Correct. 96 GiB RAM per node aligns with Nutanix’s sizing guidelines for an FSVM handling 4,000 to 8,000 connections, ensuring the Files instance can manage the expected load efficiently.

Option D (128 GiB RAM per node): Incorrect. While 128 GiB RAM per node would work, it exceeds the recommended sizing for 4,000 connections. Nutanix recommends 96 GiB for up to 8,000 connections, and 128 GiB is typically reserved for even higher connection counts (e.g., >8,000) or additional workloads on the node. The question asks for the “proper” sizing, which is the minimum recommended for the given load, making 96 GiB the correct choice.

Why Option C?

For 4,000 connections per node, Nutanix recommends 96 GiB RAM per FSVM (one FSVM per node), which translates to 96 GiB RAM per node dedicated to the FSVM. This ensures the Files instance can handle the connection load without performance degradation, aligning with Nutanix’s sizing guidelines.

Exact Extract from Nutanix Documentation:

From the Nutanix Files Sizing Guide (available on the Nutanix Portal):

“For Nutanix Files deployments, memory sizing depends on the number of connections per FSVM. For 4,000 to 8,000 connections, allocate 96 GiB of RAM per FSVM. Assuming one FSVM per node, this translates to 96 GiB RAM per node dedicated to the FSVM to ensure optimal performance.”

Additional Notes:

The question assumes one FSVM per node, which is the default configuration for Nutanix Files unless otherwise specified. If multiple FSVMs were on a single node, the total RAM would need to be adjusted, but the question’s phrasing (“per node”) aligns with the standard one-FSVM-per-node deployment.

The 96 GiB RAM is for the FSVM itself; the node may require additional RAM for other workloads (e.g., CVM, VMs), but the question focuses on the Files instance’s memory sizing, making 96 GiB the correct answer.

The most likely cause of this issue is that the file server has been cloned. Cloning a file server is not a supported operation and can cause various problems, such as Data Lens not being able to enable or disable for the cloned file server. To avoid this issue, the administrator should use the scale-out feature to add more FSVMs to an existing file server, or create a new file server from scratch. References: Nutanix Files Administration Guide, page 28; Nutanix Files Troubleshooting Guide, page 11

The alert A130358 - ConsistencyGroupWithStaleEntities in a Nutanix environment indicates an issue with a Consistency Group, which is used in Nutanix data protection to ensure that related entities (e.g., VMs, Volume Groups) are protected together in a consistent state. This alert specifically points to “stale entities,” meaning there is a problem with the entities within the Consistency Group that prevents proper protection.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group contains stale metadata): Correct. The “ConsistencyGroupWithStaleEntities” alert is triggered when entities (e.g., VMs or Volume Groups) in a Consistency Group have stale metadata, meaning their metadata is outdated or corrupted. This can happen due to synchronization issues, failed operations, or manual changes that leave the metadata inconsistent with the actual state of the entity. This prevents the Consistency Group from being protected properly, as the system cannot ensure consistency.

Option B (One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group may have been deleted): Incorrect. If an entity in a Consistency Group is deleted, a different alert would typically be triggered (e.g., related to a missing entity). The “StaleEntities” alert specifically refers to metadata issues, not deletion. However, deletion could indirectly cause metadata staleness if the deletion was not properly synchronized, but this is not the primary cause described by the alert.

Option C (The logical timestamp for one or more of the Volume Groups is not consistent between clusters): Incorrect. Inconsistent logical timestamps between clusters would typically trigger a different alert related to replication or synchronization (e.g., in Metro Availability or NearSync scenarios). The “StaleEntities” alert is specific to metadata issues within the Consistency Group on the local cluster, not a cross-cluster timestamp issue.

Option D (One or more VMs or Volume Groups belonging to the Consistency Group is part of multiple Recovery Plans configured with a Witness): Incorrect. Being part of multiple Recovery Plans or using a Witness (e.g., in Metro Availability) does not directly cause a “StaleEntities” alert. This scenario might cause other issues (e.g., conflicts in recovery operations), but it is not related to stale metadata within a Consistency Group.

Why Option A?

The “ConsistencyGroupWithStaleEntities” alert explicitly indicates that the entities in the Consistency Group have stale metadata, which must be resolved to allow proper protection. The administrator would need to investigate the affected VMs or Volume Groups, clear the stale metadata (e.g., by refreshing the Consistency Group or removing/re-adding the entity), and ensure synchronization with the cluster’s state.

Exact Extract from Nutanix Documentation:

From the Nutanix Prism Alerts Reference Guide (available on the Nutanix Portal):

“Alert A130358 - ConsistencyGroupWithStaleEntities: This alert is triggered when one or more entities (e.g., VMs or Volume Groups) in a Consistency Group have stale metadata, preventing the group from being protected consistently. Stale metadata can occur due to failed operations, synchronization issues, or manual changes. To resolve, identify the affected entities, clear the stale metadata, and ensure the Consistency Group is properly synchronized.”

The user that is authorized to deploy File Analytics is Prism Central administrator. Prism Central is a web-based user interface that allows administrators to manage multiple Nutanix clusters and services, including Files and File Analytics. Prism Central administrator is a user role that has full access and control over all Prism Central features and functions. To deploy File Analytics, the user must log in to Prism Central as a Prism Central administrator and follow the steps in the File Analytics Deployment wizard. References: Nutanix Files Administration Guide, page 93; Nutanix File Analytics Deployment Guide

Nutanix Objects, part of Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), provides S3-compatible object storage. After installing Objects and creating a bucket, the administrator is accessing the bucket via its reference URL (e.g., the S3 endpoint) using an Active Directory (AD) account but cannot write data. This indicates a permissions or configuration issue related to the AD account’s access to the bucket.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (Replace SSL Certificates at the Objects store level): Incorrect. SSL certificates are used for secure communication with the Objects store (e.g., HTTPS access via the reference URL). While an invalid or untrusted certificate might cause connection issues, the administrator can access the bucket (as they are attempting to write), so the issue is not with SSL certificates—it’s with write permissions for the AD account.

Option B (Verify Access Keys for the user): Incorrect. Access Keys (e.g., AWS-style access key and secret key) are used for programmatic access to Nutanix Objects via S3 APIs. However, the question specifies that the administrator is using an AD account, which suggests authentication via AD integration (e.g., SSO or LDAP). In this case, Access Keys are not relevant—permissions are managed through AD user accounts and bucket policies, not S3 Access Keys.

Option C (Verify sharing policies at the bucket level): Correct. Nutanix Objects supports AD integration for user authentication, allowing AD accounts to access buckets. However, bucket access (e.g., read, write) is controlled by sharing policies (or bucket policies) defined at the bucket level. If the AD account cannot write data, the sharing policy likely does not grant write permissions to the user or their AD group. The administrator should verify and update the bucket’s sharing policies in Prism Central to ensure the AD account has write access.

Option D (Reset the Active Directory user password): Incorrect. Resetting the AD user password might resolve authentication issues (e.g., if the password was incorrect), but the question implies the administrator can authenticate and access the bucket (since they are attempting to write). The issue is with write permissions, not authentication, so resetting the password will not resolve the problem.

Why Option C?

When using an AD account to access a Nutanix Objects bucket, permissions are managed through bucket-level sharing policies. The inability to write data indicates that the AD account (or its associated group) lacks write permissions in the bucket’s policy. Verifying and updating the sharing policies in Prism Central to grant write access to the AD account resolves the issue, ensuring the user can write data to the bucket.

Exact Extract from Nutanix Documentation:

From the Nutanix Objects Administration Guide (available on the Nutanix Portal):

“Nutanix Objects supports Active Directory integration for user authentication. Bucket access for AD accounts is controlled by sharing policies at the bucket level. If an AD user cannot write data to a bucket, verify the sharing policies in Prism Central to ensure the user or their AD group has write permissions.”