Exam 5V0-21.19 topic 1 question 8 discussion

I think that the correct answers may be A and C. Answer E: It's not possible because VMs Group A with FTT=0 not support any host failure. Then VMs Group A couldn't support 3 Host Failure or Maintenance. Answer B : VMs Group A not support 2 Host failure. Then vSAN cannot rebuild Answer D: VMs Group B should support with FTT = 2 (n+1). Then with 2 Host on permanent fail the VMs Group B not experience data loss.

i'll go with A anc C as mariogg85 explained

Lets think about options. Not very clear scenario but my opinion is A & C are most suitable ones. a- You can not be sure if two copiees were on the failed hosts or rebuild is completed. So it is an probability but not certain case. b- Group A is FTT=0, so it is stored as 1 copy. So if data has lost there is no chance to rebuild. c- If the objects of a vm is failed hosts yes you might experience inaccessibility. d- FTT=2 with 5 hosts mean raid-1 with 3 copies. If 2 copies are on the failed hosts still there is one copy, so it is not possible to lose data. e- After 2 hosts failure, there are 3 hosts survive. Think 3 copies of Group-B are there and put the one host in maintenance impact compliance of FTT=2.

My vote is C and D. For sure there would be some objects from Group A with data loss because they were on the 2 failed hosts. Group B supports two failures and with two hosts dropping would have the opportunity for some objects to have data loss as well. I think C and D would be the most correct.

Are correct

I vote A &C

A & C is the correct answer. Group A doesn't support any failure, while Group B just support two. and if a third host fail data would be inaccessible.

Tricky question with "sub-optimal" options for the Answer... A => Some VMs could be lucky to have their last two copies (non-witness objects) on the surviving host. so the Data is there and not lost. But why should all of Group B become inaccessible? Because of the missing ability to build a quorum? B => yeah, that can be ruled out pretty surely. C => not sure about that, because of "might experience". The VMs in Group A will definitvely have a data loss (not just inaccessible) - if not already suffered before. And lost data is at the same time inaccessible (because it is lost). But the wording just does not "feel right". D => similiar to A - the "unlucky" VMs have a data loss (just the witness-objects are left). E => with just two host left? That can be ruled out too. Personally I would go for A & D: A => Quorum can not be established => all of Group B are inaccessible. D => Some of the (inaccessible) VMs could also have suffered Data-Loss on top of that (only their witness-objects are left on the last 2 surviving hosts, all mirrors are gone)