A company has recently implemented ECS EX500 nodes for two in-house applications. There is a defined bucket for the data of each application. The storage administration team is receiving complaints…

Question

Options

• AOne bucket is using flash drives, and the other bucket is using SATA drives.
• BNeither bucket is using a load balancer.
• COne bucket is configured with a load balancer, and the other bucket has no load balancer.
• DOne bucket is using NFS, and the other bucket is using S3.

• A
  6% (3)
• B
  14% (7)
• C
  10% (5)
• D
  71% (36)

Explanation

Option D is correct because Dell EMC ECS (Elastic Cloud Storage) supports multiple access protocols - including S3 (object) and NFS (file) - and these protocols have fundamentally different performance profiles. S3 uses HTTP-based REST operations optimized for massive parallel throughput, while NFS is a traditional file protocol with different latency, metadata overhead, and concurrency characteristics; using them on separate buckets will produce noticeably different performance outcomes for the applications.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is incorrect because ECS nodes use a unified storage tier - buckets do not get individually assigned flash vs. SATA drives; hardware is shared at the cluster level.
• B is incorrect because ECS has built-in load distribution across the cluster; "neither bucket uses a load balancer" is not a valid ECS configuration distinction.
• C is incorrect because load balancers in ECS are a cluster/node-level concern, not a per-bucket setting - buckets cannot individually have a load balancer enabled or disabled.

Memory tip: Think "protocol = performance." In ECS, the access protocol (NFS vs. S3) is the biggest lever that differs between buckets, making D the go-to answer whenever a question involves two buckets with different performance on ECS hardware.

No community discussion yet for this question.