Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Alibaba Exam ACA-Developer Topic 5 Question 65 Discussion

Actual exam question for Alibaba's ACA-Developer exam
Question #: 65
Topic #: 5
[All ACA-Developer Questions]

When versioning is enabled for an OSS Bucket, previous versions of objects will be retained, using storage space and incurring additional costs. How can you save space and reduce costs, while retaining some of the benefits of object versioning?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Tequila at Jul 12, 2024, 09:03 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ACA-Developer Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Angelo
2 months ago
Old versions of objects? I'll just delete them all, problem solved! Wait, is that not how it works?
upvoted 0 times
...
Willodean
2 months ago
A? You gotta be kidding me. Versioning is essential, we can't just ignore it. C is the clear winner here.
upvoted 0 times
Joesph
1 months ago
Avoiding version management completely might not be the best idea. C seems like a more strategic option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ulysses
2 months ago
Using OSS's built-in lifecycle management capabilities sounds like a practical approach to managing old versions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Matthew
2 months ago
I agree, it's a good balance between saving space and still keeping the benefits of object versioning.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mel
2 months ago
C is definitely the way to go. Automatically deleting old versions after a set time is a smart solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Vannessa
3 months ago
B with Function Compute? Nah, that sounds like way too much work. I'll stick with C and let OSS handle it for me.
upvoted 0 times
Walton
2 months ago
I agree, C seems like the most convenient choice. No need to overcomplicate things with Function Compute.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malinda
2 months ago
C sounds like the easiest option. Let OSS take care of deleting old versions for me.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Vonda
3 months ago
I agree with Twanna, using lifecycle management to delete old versions automatically seems like the best option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawn
3 months ago
D is the way to go. Archival Storage is perfect for those old versions, cheaper than regular storage and still keeps them around if needed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Moon
3 months ago
Option C seems like the most logical choice. Who wants to keep track of old versions manually? Automation is key!
upvoted 0 times
Tora
2 months ago
Avoiding manual tracking of old versions is definitely a time-saver.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maybelle
2 months ago
I think using OSS's built-in lifecycle management capabilities is the most efficient solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eliseo
3 months ago
Automation is definitely key when it comes to managing old versions of objects.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamra
3 months ago
I agree, option C sounds like the best way to save space and reduce costs.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Twanna
3 months ago
That's a good point, but I feel like automatically deleting old versions after a set time would be more efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonard
3 months ago
But wouldn't moving old versions to Archival Storage be a better option to save space and reduce costs?
upvoted 0 times
...
Twanna
4 months ago
I think we should use OSS's built in lifecycle management to automatically delete old versions of objects.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel