New Year Sale 2026! 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

Docker DCA Exam - Topic 7 Question 91 Discussion

Actual exam question for Docker's DCA exam
Question #: 91
Topic #: 7
[All DCA Questions]

Will this configuration achieve fault tolerance for managers in a swarm?

Solution: one manager node for two worker nodes

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Docker Swarm requires more than one manager node to achieve fault tolerance12. A single manager node is not fault tolerant because if it goes down, the entire cluster goes down3. For a swarm to be fault-tolerant, it needs to have an odd number of manager nodes2. For example, a three-manager swarm tolerates a maximum loss of one manager2. Therefore, a configuration with one manager node for two worker nodes will not achieve fault tolerance for managers in a swarm12.


by Brent at Jun 30, 2024, 08:31 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Jina
3 months ago
Yeah, one manager for two workers is sketchy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elza
3 months ago
Definitely a no, needs at least two managers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Justine
4 months ago
Wait, are we sure that works? Seems risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marjory
4 months ago
Totally agree, one manager is a single point of failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hoa
4 months ago
That's not enough redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shanda
4 months ago
I believe fault tolerance usually requires at least three managers to handle failures effectively.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brittni
5 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like two worker nodes with one manager could lead to a single point of failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tu
5 months ago
I remember a practice question where multiple managers were needed for redundancy. This seems similar.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamar
5 months ago
I think having just one manager node might not be enough for fault tolerance, especially if it goes down.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicidad
5 months ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. The solution seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I fully understand the implications of the manager-worker ratio before selecting an answer. Maybe I'll make a quick note to come back to this one if I have time at the end.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melvin
5 months ago
Okay, let's think this through. The key is understanding what fault tolerance means in the context of a swarm. If one manager node goes down, the other worker nodes should still be able to function, right? I'll go with option A and explain my reasoning in the exam.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ria
5 months ago
I think this is a straightforward question. The solution provided seems to indicate that having one manager node for two worker nodes should provide fault tolerance, so I'll go with option A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Valentine
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. Fault tolerance is an important concept, but I'm not confident that a 1:2 manager to worker ratio is the right approach. I might need to review the course material on swarm configurations again before answering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tricia
5 months ago
Hmm, this seems like a pretty straightforward question. I'd probably go with option C and check the Adobe Experience Cloud debugger to confirm the data is on the live site.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barabara
5 months ago
This seems like a good opportunity to apply the troubleshooting steps we've learned. I'll start by reviewing the scenario and exhibit to identify the key information, then I'll carefully consider each option to determine the best place to verify the CPU and memory usage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Odette
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. Since custom code isn't allowed, I'm not sure if the Entities component would work. I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barbra
2 years ago
Haha, this question is like asking if a single parachute can support an entire skydiving team. No way, Jose! B is the only sane answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delbert
2 years ago
This is a classic case of 'too many cooks in the kitchen'. You need a balance, not just throwing more managers at the problem. B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Rose
2 years ago
B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alisha
2 years ago
B
upvoted 0 times
...
Yoko
2 years ago
A
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Franklyn
2 years ago
B all the way. Gotta have more managers to spread the load and keep things running smoothly. One's just asking for trouble.
upvoted 0 times
Gail
2 years ago
B all the way. Gotta have more managers to spread the load and keep things running smoothly. One's just asking for trouble.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ernest
2 years ago
B
upvoted 0 times
...
Carman
2 years ago
A
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ronny
2 years ago
Hmm, I don't know. Doesn't sound very robust to me. I'd want at least three manager nodes to handle failures properly.
upvoted 0 times
Yolando
1 year ago
Yes, I agree. Having at least three manager nodes would be a better configuration for fault tolerance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorrine
1 year ago
I think we definitely need more manager nodes to achieve fault tolerance in the swarm.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lili
2 years ago
I agree, having only one manager node for two worker nodes doesn't seem very reliable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlette
2 years ago
Yes, I also believe that having at least three manager nodes would be a better solution for handling failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Odelia
2 years ago
I think we definitely need more manager nodes to achieve fault tolerance in the swarm.
upvoted 0 times
...
Avery
2 years ago
I agree, having only one manager node for two worker nodes doesn't seem very reliable.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Fidelia
2 years ago
I agree with Huey. Having one manager node for two worker nodes can provide fault tolerance by spreading the workload and reducing the chances of failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Huey
2 years ago
I think it could work. Having multiple worker nodes can help distribute the load and reduce the risk of a single point of failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Belen
2 years ago
One manager node for two workers? That's like having one traffic cop for a whole highway intersection. Definitely a big no-no for fault tolerance!
upvoted 0 times
Jolanda
2 years ago
One manager node for two workers? That's like having one traffic cop for a whole highway intersection. Definitely a big no-no for fault tolerance!
upvoted 0 times
...
Audra
2 years ago
B) No
upvoted 0 times
...
Miriam
2 years ago
A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Pearline
2 years ago
I'm not sure. It might depend on the workload and the specific setup.
upvoted 0 times
...
Donette
2 years ago
Do you think one manager node for two worker nodes will achieve fault tolerance?
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel