What are the two considerations for designing ECS replication groups in an archive solution? (Select 2)

Question

Options

• AFast ingest on EXF900 may speed up the replication process and reduce RPO.
• BWAN latency may create performance bottlenecks during remote reads.
• CGlobal replication groups are mandatory in a two or more ECS VDC setup.
• DLimit the number of replication groups to reduce indexing overhead.

• A
  17% (9)
• B
  74% (39)
• C
  9% (5)

Explanation

When designing ECS replication groups for archive solutions, WAN latency (B) is a critical concern because data replicated across geographically dispersed VDCs must traverse slower wide-area links - any remote read requests will suffer from that latency, creating bottlenecks that affect retrieval performance in archive workflows. Limiting the number of replication groups (D) is equally important because each group adds indexing overhead; archive environments often manage massive datasets, so excessive replication groups compound that overhead and degrade overall system performance.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is a red herring - the EXF900 is a different Dell storage platform, and conflating it with ECS replication design is a trap; hardware ingest speed doesn't directly govern ECS replication group design considerations or RPO in this context.
• C is false - global replication groups are optional, not mandatory, in multi-VDC setups; you choose a replication strategy based on your RTO/RPO requirements, not a blanket rule.

Memory tip: Think "WAN and Waste" - WAN latency hurts remote reads, and too many groups waste resources through indexing overhead. Both are things you must design around, not ignore.

No community discussion yet for this question.