A service provider with a 64 node ECS in a single VDC requires logical separation of data for each tenant. All tenants would like to use 12+4 erasure coding scheme for data protection. What is the…

Question

Options

• ACreate a single storage pool with one replication group per tenant.
• BCreate a single storage pool with one or more namespaces per tenant.
• CCreate a single storage pool per tenant with the same replication group.
• DCreate a single namespace with one bucket per tenant.

• A
  4% (2)
• B
  63% (32)
• C
  22% (11)
• D
  12% (6)

Explanation

Option B is correct because in Dell EMC ECS, namespaces are the purpose-built mechanism for multi-tenant logical isolation - each namespace gets its own access controls, policies, and data boundaries while all sharing the same underlying storage pool. With all 64 nodes in a single VDC forming one storage pool, the 12+4 erasure coding scheme (requiring 16 fragments spread across nodes) applies uniformly to that pool, satisfying every tenant's protection requirement without duplication.

Why the distractors fail:

• A is wrong because replication groups govern geo-replication between VDCs/storage pools, not tenant isolation - one RG per tenant misuses the construct and provides no separation.
• C is wrong because separate storage pools per tenant would fragment your 64-node cluster, potentially leaving individual pools with too few nodes to sustain 12+4 EC (which needs at minimum 16 nodes), and it defeats the efficiency of a shared pool.
• D is wrong because a single shared namespace means tenants are co-mingled at the isolation boundary; buckets alone don't provide the administrative and security separation that namespaces do.

Memory tip: Think "Namespace = Tenant Space." The word is almost a mnemonic - in ECS, a namespace is a tenant's private space inside a shared pool.

No community discussion yet for this question.