An operator suspects that the currently deployed Service Engines are undersized and is concerned about the impact of that situation. They are configured with 1 vCPU and 2 GB RAM. Why is the operator…

Question

Options

• AOperator would be unable to login to NSX Load Balancer Admin console
• BAdditional Virtual Services could not be placed
• CSSL throughput would be affected
• DClient connections would be redirected to another pool

• A
  11% (3)
• B
  4% (1)
• C
  7% (2)
• D
  79% (22)

Explanation

When NSX Advanced Load Balancer Service Engines are undersized (minimum 1 vCPU / 2 GB RAM), they quickly exhaust their resource capacity under real traffic loads - and when that capacity ceiling is hit, the SE's built-in response is to redirect client connections to another pool (such as a sorry pool or backup pool), which is directly and visibly disruptive to end users. This is the operator's core concern: not just degraded performance, but active traffic misdirection that clients will experience. Option A is wrong because SE sizing is a data-plane concern and has no bearing on logging into the NSX ALB management console. Option B is plausible but secondary - while a small SE may not host additional Virtual Services, the more urgent impact is what happens to existing connections already being served. Option C is tempting since 1 vCPU severely limits SSL/TLS processing throughput, but SSL degradation is a performance issue, not a routing one; the exam is asking about the consequence of being fully undersized.

Memory tip: Think "undersized SE = out of runway → must land somewhere else." The SE can't just slow down gracefully; it has to redirect - which maps directly to answer D.

No community discussion yet for this question.