An organization is considering buying hosts that have one three-port NIC rather than buying hosts that have three one-port NICs. Is this a good idea? Why or why not?

The correct answer is C. This is not a good idea; one card translates to a single point of failure. If the one three-port NIC fails, you will usually lose all three ports on the NIC. It would be a better solution to use three one-port NICs instead. You lose one card, and you lose only one port.

Create a Design for vSphere 5.x Network

Question

Options

AThis is a good idea; one three-port NIC means fewer PCI slots.
BThis is a good idea; one card is cheaper than three.
CThis is not a good idea; one card translates to a single point of failure.
DThis is not a good idea; three-port NICs are expensive

How the community answered

(50 responses)

A
4% (2)
B
10% (5)
C
84% (42)
D
2% (1)

Explanation

If the one three-port NIC fails, you will usually lose all three ports on the NIC. It would be a better solution to use three one-port NICs instead. You lose one card, and you lose only one port.

Topics

#NIC redundancy#single point of failure#host networking#network design

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Full VDCD510 Practice