Which are two valid reasons for executing an X9M-2 Exadata storage server rescue procedure?

Question

Options

• Athe failure of physical disk 1
• Bcorruption in the / (root) filesystem
• Cthe failure of both physical M.2 disks
• Dthe failure of physical disk 0 and 11
• Emoving all disks from one cell to another as part of a chassis-level component failure
• Faccidental loss of all data from all griddisks in a storage server
• Gcorruption in a normal or high redundancy ASM diskgroup

• B
  75% (15)
• D
  15% (3)
• E
  5% (1)
• G
  5% (1)

Explanation

B and C are correct because the X9M-2 rescue procedure exists specifically to recover a storage cell when its operating system environment is unbootable or critically damaged. Root filesystem corruption (B) prevents the cell OS from loading normally, requiring a rescue boot to repair or reinstall it. Both M.2 disks (C) serve as the mirrored boot/OS drives on the X9M-2; if both fail, the cell has no bootable device, making the rescue procedure necessary to replace them and reinstall the OS.

The distractors are wrong for these reasons: Options A and D involve data disk failures, which are handled via normal hot-swap replacement - Exadata's ASM redundancy keeps the cell operational without a rescue. Option E (chassis-level disk migration) has its own documented migration procedure, distinct from rescue. Option F (griddisk data loss) is a data-layer problem addressed through ASM recovery or backup restoration, not an OS rescue. Option G (ASM diskgroup corruption) is resolved at the database/ASM tier, not the cell OS level.

Memory tip: Think "rescue = can't boot." The rescue procedure only applies when the cell's OS itself is the victim - corrupted root filesystem or dead boot disks. Any problem above the OS layer (ASM, griddisks, data disks) is handled by other procedures.

No community discussion yet for this question.