Your company has a main office and a remote office. The remote office is used for disaster recovery.
The network contains an Active Directory domain named contoso.com. The domain contains
member servers named Server1, Server2, Server3, and Server4. All servers run Windows Server 2012
R2.
Server1 and Server2 are located in the main office. Server3 and Server4 are located in the remote
office.
All servers have the Failover Clustering feature installed. The servers are configured as nodes in a
failover cluster named Cluster1. Storage is replicated between the main office and the remote site.
You need to ensure that Cluster1 is available if two nodes in the same office fail.
What are two possible quorum configurations that achieve the goal? (Each correct answer presents
a complete solution. Choose two.)
A.
No Majority: Disk Only
B.
Node Majority
C.
Node and File Share Majority
D.
Node and Disk Majority
Explanation:
Depending on the quorum configuration option that you choose and your specific settings, the
cluster will be configured in one of the following quorum modes:
* (A) No majority (disk witness only)
* (B) Node majority (no witness)
* Node majority with witness (disk or file share)Configure and Manage the Quorum in a Windows Server 2012 R2 Failover Cluster
I would go with C+D.
http://www.aiotestking.com/microsoft/what-are-two-possible-quorum-configurations-that-achieve-the-goal/
0
0
C+ D
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731739.aspx
0
0
Can anyone explain why is it C and D? when majority of the discussion seem to be pointing to A and B
0
0
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731739.aspx
“Node Majority (recommended for clusters with an odd number of nodes)”
In the question you have an even number so it can’t be B.
“No Majority: Disk Only (not recommended)
Can sustain failures of all nodes except one (if the disk is online). However, this configuration is not recommended because the disk might be a single point of failure.”
As Microsoft says is not recommended i wouldn’t pick A either.
0
0
The correct answer is A + B
it says, 2 nodes in same site failed ,not connection failed.
if 2 nodes in same site failed and quorum is configured as nodes majority
the 2 nodes remaining activated will take all resources,failed nodes won’t
the whole cluster will work without issue.
if 2 nodes in same site failed and quorum is configured as disk only
only the nodes remaing activated will take the ownership of quorum disk,
so they will take all resources ,failed nodes won’t
the whole cluster will work without issue.
0
1
I agree with A even though M$ don’t recommend building clusters like that, however B is wrong imo. You build a node majority quorum when you have an odd number of nodes. We have 4 servers, this means that if you build them with node majority they can only sustain 1 failure. The rest of the nodes are basically worthless if you have two consecutive failures, cause this will cause you to lose quorum and the whole cluster will shut down.
So I’d rather have a disk only quorum than a node majority on an even number of nodes. At least I know that I can sustain 3 consecutive failures with option A and still have quorum…
0
0
should be C, D.
because the question says only 2 servers at a site down, storage for cluster is up on both sites, so node plus file share witness or disk witness functions with a majority of the vote, so clustering will work fine.
1
0