Which result occurs if a device alias is renamed and then the original device alias name is used in an add command in the same session?

Question

Options

• ABoth commands execute successfully.
• BThe device alias is renamed and the add command is moved to the rejected list.
• CBoth commands are moved to the rejected list.
• DThe rename command is moved to the rejected list and the add command executes successfully.

• A
  92% (33)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  6% (2)

Explanation

Option A is correct because in a device alias session, renaming a device alias frees up the original name - it is no longer bound to any WWN. When you subsequently use that original name in an add command within the same session, the system sees it as a valid, unused name and the add succeeds without conflict.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B is wrong because the add command does not fail; the original name is available after the rename, so there is nothing to reject.
• C is wrong because the rename is a legitimate operation on an existing alias, and the add uses a now-free name - neither produces an error.
• D reverses the logic incorrectly; the rename succeeds (it operates on a valid existing alias), so there is no reason for it to be rejected.

Memory tip: Think of it like renaming a folder on your desktop - once you rename "FolderA" to "FolderB," the name "FolderA" is immediately free, so creating a new "FolderA" in the same session works perfectly fine.

No community discussion yet for this question.