An administrator is receiving notifications about insufficient power for a PowerEdge MX7000 chassis. The chassis is fed from two different power grids. What is the best policy to maximize power and…

Question

Options

• APSU Pairing
• BGrid Redundancy
• CPSU Redundancy
• DNo Redundancy

• A
  9% (2)
• B
  5% (1)
• C
  5% (1)
• D
  82% (18)

Explanation

No Redundancy (D) is correct because it dedicates the full capacity of all PSUs to the power budget without reserving any for failover, resolving the insufficient power notifications. Since the chassis is already physically connected to two separate power grids, uptime is protected at the infrastructure level - making software-level redundancy policies unnecessary overhead.

Grid Redundancy (B) splits PSUs across two grids and reserves one grid's capacity as a standby, which cuts the usable power budget roughly in half - the opposite of what's needed here. PSU Redundancy (C) similarly keeps spare PSUs in reserve rather than contributing to the available wattage. PSU Pairing (A) pairs PSUs together for coordinated failover, which also reduces the effective power budget and doesn't leverage the dual-grid infrastructure already in place.

Memory tip: Think "No Redundancy = No reservation = No power shortage." When the physical infrastructure (dual grids) already handles uptime, the chassis policy should maximize power - and No Redundancy is the only option that puts every PSU to work.

No community discussion yet for this question.