An administrator creates a cluster by joining a Medium sized VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) Operations for Logs node to an existing Medium sized single-node deployment. The secondary node of the…

Question

Options

• AScale up the VCF Operations for Logs primary and secondary node to size Extra Large.
• BScale up the VCF Operations for Logs primary and secondary node to size Large.
• CRebuild the VCF Operations for Logs cluster secondary node and place the cluster back into
• DRebuild the VCF Operations for Logs cluster secondary node and add an additional node to the

• A
  4% (1)
• B
  17% (4)
• C
  4% (1)
• D
  74% (17)

Explanation

Option D is correct because VCF Operations for Logs requires a minimum of three nodes for a healthy, active cluster - a two-node setup (primary + one secondary) is not a supported, fully functional cluster configuration. Simply rebuilding the failed secondary node restores only the original two-node state, which is still insufficient; adding a third node brings the deployment to the minimum required for cluster health and proper fault tolerance.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A and B are incorrect because scaling up node sizes (to Extra Large or Large) addresses capacity, not cluster integrity - the problem is the number of nodes, not their size.
• C is incorrect because rebuilding the secondary alone returns you to the same under-supported two-node arrangement, leaving the cluster unhealthy.

Memory tip: Think of VCF Operations for Logs clustering like a three-legged stool - you need at least 3 legs (nodes) to stand stable. Two nodes is never a complete, healthy cluster, so whenever a node fails in a two-node setup, the fix is always rebuild + add one more.

No community discussion yet for this question.