Nutanix NCP-US-6.5 - Nutanix Certified Professional - Unified Storage (NCP-US) v6.5

Smart DR in Nutanix Files, part of Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), simplifies disaster recovery (DR) by automating replication policies between file servers (e.g., using NearSync, as seen in Question 24). Deploying Smart DR has specific prerequisites to ensure compatibility and successful replication between the primary and recovery file servers.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (Open TCP port 7515 on all client network IPs uni-directionally on the source and recovery file servers): Incorrect. Port 7515 is not a standard port for Nutanix Files or Smart DR communication. Smart DR replication typically uses ports like 2009 and 2020 for data transfer between FSVMs, and port 9440 for communication with Prism Central (as noted in Question 45). The client network IPs (used for SMB/NFS traffic) are not involved in Smart DR replication traffic, and uni-directional port opening is not a requirement.

Option B (The primary and recovery file servers must have the same domain name): Correct. Smart DR requires that the primary and recovery file servers are joined to the same Active Directory (AD) domain (i.e., same domain name) to ensure consistent user authentication and permissions during failover. This is a critical prerequisite, as mismatched domains can cause access issues when the recovery site takes over, especially for SMB shares relying on AD authentication.

Option C (Requires one-to-many shares): Incorrect. Smart DR does not require one-to-many shares (i.e., a single share replicated to multiple recovery sites). Nutanix Files supports one-to-one replication for shares (e.g., primary to recovery site, as seen in the exhibit for Question 24), and one-to-many replication is not a prerequisite—it’s an optional configuration not supported by Smart DR.

Option D (The Files Manager must have at least three file servers): Incorrect. “Files Manager” is not a standard Nutanix term, but assuming it refers to the Files instance or deployment, there is no requirement for three file servers. Smart DR can be deployed with a single file server on each site (primary and recovery), though three FSVMs per file server are recommended for high availability (not file servers). This option misinterprets the requirement.

Why Option B?

Smart DR ensures seamless failover between primary and recovery file servers, which requires consistent user authentication. Both file servers must be joined to the same AD domain (same domain name) to maintain user permissions and access during failover, especially for SMB shares. This is a documented prerequisite for Smart DR deployment to avoid authentication issues.

Exact Extract from Nutanix Documentation:

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

“A prerequisite for deploying Smart DR is that the primary and recovery file servers must be joined to the same Active Directory domain (same domain name). This ensures consistent user authentication and permissions during failover, preventing access issues for clients.”

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.”

Before upgrading Objects Manager, the administrator must upgrade AOS to the latest version. AOS is the core operating system that runs on each node in a Nutanix cluster and provides the foundation for Objects Manager and Objects service. Upgrading AOS will ensure compatibility and stability for Objects components. References: Nutanix Objects Administration Guide, Acropolis Operating System Upgrade Guide

Nutanix Objects, part of Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), supports lifecycle policies to manage the retention and expiration of objects in a bucket. When versioning is enabled, a bucket can store multiple versions of an object, with the “current version” being the latest version and “past versions” being older iterations. The lifecycle policy “Expire current objects after # days/months/years” specifically targets the current version of an object.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (The policy deletes any past versions of the object after the specified time and does not delete any current version of the object): Incorrect. The “Expire current objects” policy targets the current version, not past versions. A separate lifecycle rule (e.g., “Expire non-current versions”) would be needed to delete past versions.

Option B (The policy deletes the current version of the object after the specified time and does not delete any past versions of the object): Correct. The “Expire current objects” policy deletes the current version of an object after the specified time period (e.g., # days/months/years). Since versioning is enabled, past versions are not affected by this policy and remain in the bucket unless a separate rule targets them.

Option C (The policy does not delete the current version of the object after the specified time and does not delete any past versions of the object): Incorrect. The policy explicitly states that it expires (deletes) the current version after the specified time, so this option contradicts the policy’s purpose.

Option D (The policy deletes any past versions of the object after the specified time and deletes any current version of the object): Incorrect. The “Expire current objects” policy does not target past versions—it only deletes the current version after the specified time.

Why Option B?

When versioning is enabled, the lifecycle policy “Expire current objects after # days/months/years” applies only to the current version of the object. After the specified time, the current version is deleted, and the most recent past version becomes the new current version (if no new uploads occur). Past versions are not deleted unless a separate lifecycle rule (e.g., for non-current versions) is applied.

Exact Extract from Nutanix Documentation:

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

“When versioning is enabled on a bucket, the lifecycle policy ‘Expire current objects after # days/months/years’ deletes the current version of an object after the specified time period. Past versions of the object are not affected by this policy and will remain in the bucket unless a separate lifecycle rule is applied to expire non-current versions.”

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 Files Console Dashboard View provides an overview of the Files cluster performance and usage, including the following graphs:

Storage Used: Shows the total storage used by the Files cluster, including data, metadata, and snapshots.

Open Connections: Shows the number of active SMB and NFS connections to the Files cluster.

Number of Files: Shows the number of files stored in the Files cluster, excluding snapshots.

Top Shares by Current Capacity: Shows the top five shares by current capacity usage in the Files cluster.

Top Shares by Current Connections: Shows the top five shares by current connection count in the Files cluster2. References: Nutanix Files Administration Guide2

Self-Service Restore (SSR) is a feature that allows individual users to restore files and folders hosted in Files without requiring administrator intervention. SSR can be enabled on a per-share or per-export basis, and users can access the snapshots of their data through a web portal or a Windows client application1. References: Nutanix Files Administration Guide1

Nutanix Files, part of Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), supports data protection for shares through mechanisms like replication and snapshots. When a share is “protected for the first time,” this typically refers to enabling a protection mechanism, such as a replication policy (e.g., NearSync, as seen in Question 24) or a snapshot schedule, to ensure the share’s data can be recovered in case of failure.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (Share data movement is started to the recovery site): Incorrect. While data movement to a recovery site occurs during replication (e.g., with NearSync), this is not the first step when a share is protected. Before data can be replicated, a baseline snapshot is typically created to capture the share’s initial state. Data movement follows the snapshot creation, not as the first step.

Option B (A remote snapshot is created for the share): Incorrect. A remote snapshot implies that a snapshot is created directly on the recovery site, which is not how Nutanix Files protection works initially. The first step is to create a local snapshot on the primary site, which is then replicated to the remote site as part of the protection process (e.g., via NearSync).

Option C (The share is created on the recovery site with a similar configuration): Incorrect. While this step may occur during replication setup (e.g., the remote site’s file server is configured to host a read-only copy of the share, as seen in the exhibit for Question 24), it is not the first process initiated. The share on the recovery site is created as part of the replication process, which begins after a local snapshot is taken.

Option D (A local snapshot is created for the share): Correct. When a share is protected for the first time (e.g., by enabling a snapshot schedule or replication policy), the initial step is to create a local snapshot of the share on the primary site. This snapshot captures the share’s current state and serves as the baseline for protection mechanisms like replication or recovery. For example, in a NearSync setup, a local snapshot is taken, and then the snapshot data is replicated to the remote site.

Why Option D?

Protecting a share in Nutanix Files typically involves snapshots as the foundation for data protection. The first step is to create a local snapshot of the share on the primary site, which captures the share’s data and metadata. This snapshot can then be used for local recovery (e.g., via Self-Service Restore) or replicated to a remote site for DR (e.g., via NearSync). The question focuses on the initial process, making the creation of a local snapshot the correct answer.

Exact Extract from Nutanix Documentation:

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

“When a share is protected for the first time, whether through a snapshot schedule or a replication policy, the initial step is to create a local snapshot of the share on the primary site. This snapshot captures the share’s current state and serves as the baseline for subsequent protection operations, such as replication to a remote site or local recovery.”

The number of configurable snapshots that are supported for SSR in a file server is 200. SSR (Snapshot-based Replication) is a feature that allows administrators to replicate snapshots of shares or exports from one file server to another file server on a different cluster or site for disaster recovery purposes. SSR can be configured with various parameters, such as replication frequency, replication status, replication mode, etc. SSR supports up to 200 configurable snapshots per share or export in a file server. References: Nutanix Files Administration Guide, page 81; Nutanix Files Solution Guide, page 9

The most efficient way to generate a report listing the files matching those in the exhibit is to use Report Builder in File Analytics. Report Builder is a feature that allows administrators to create custom reports based on various filters and criteria, such as file name, file type, file size, file owner, file age, file access time, file modification time, file permission change time, and so on. Report Builder can also export the reports in CSV format for further analysis or sharing. References: Nutanix Files Administration Guide, page 97; Nutanix File Analytics User Guide