Nutanix NCP-MCI-7.5 - Nutanix Certified Professional - Multicloud Infrastructure (NCP-MCI) 7.5

If the organization has changed naming conventions and needs VM disks placed into containers that comply with the new standard, the direct operational method is to move the VM’s virtual disks to the correct container. In Nutanix, that action is done through live vDisk migration. This preserves workload availability while relocating storage placement to the new destination container that matches policy. The question is really about correcting existing placement, not just defining intent for future objects. ( Nutanix Portal )

The other options do not solve the immediate placement problem. A storage policy can influence behavior, but it does not retroactively relocate already placed vDisks unless that policy is tied to an action that changes their storage location. Image placement policy affects images, not existing VM disk residency. Renaming storage containers is not the right operational answer here because naming policy changes usually result in a need to place workloads into the correct containers, and administrators do not rely on renaming alone to change where current VM data lives. Nutanix’s management model supports live movement of VM storage, so A is the practical and technically correct answer. ( Nutanix Portal )

Nutanix documentation for PD-based DR remote-site configuration states that if vStore mapping is not configured, replication occurs to the remote container with the same name as the source container. Nutanix further explains that this fallback relies on the existence of that matching destination container. Therefore, if same-name containers do not exist on the two sites and no explicit vStore mapping is defined, the replication target cannot be resolved correctly and the replication will fail. That makes A the correct answer.

This behavior is intentional. Nutanix does not randomly pick a destination container, nor does it silently force all replications into the default container. When administrators want different container names between source and target, the supported mechanism is vStore mapping. Skipping that mapping only works when identical container names already exist at both sites. Because the question explicitly removes that condition, replications fail to complete, which is why A is the authentic answer.

Nutanix documentation for multisite disaster recovery states that a protection policy can include multiple replication schedules across up to three different recovery clusters, and Nutanix also documents the ability to configure multisite replication schedules for up to three recovery clusters with different schedules. That means a source site can protect workloads to multiple destinations without requiring separate, duplicated protection policies for each site. Given the options, the most efficient approach is therefore one protection policy from the source cluster covering all three sites, which is option D.

The answer choices that create multiple separate protection policies are less efficient and introduce avoidable administrative duplication. Cloning policies across sites also misses the point of Nutanix’s native multisite capability. Even though the sites are managed by different Prism Central instances, Nutanix documents DR support between clusters registered to different Prism Central instances as well. So the most scalable and documentation-aligned answer is D.