Ooh, that's an interesting angle. I didn't think about the read performance being a clue. But I'm still not 100% sure. Can we get a calculator and work this through step-by-step?
Wait, wait, wait. I think you're all missing something. What if the 10GB/s read performance is actually the total bandwidth across all the blades? That would mean the customer is using some kind of distributed file system or storage array, and the capacity would be the total of all the blades, minus one for the failed blade. So the answer is C: 285TB.
Okay, let's break this down step-by-step. The customer has 10 blades, each with 52TB of storage, for a total of 520TB. But they only have 328TB of usable space, so that means there's some kind of redundancy or RAID setup going on. If one blade fails, that leaves 9 blades, which would be 9 x 52TB = 468TB. But the question says the customer has 328TB, so I think the answer is B: 241TB.
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. What if the 10GB/s read performance is a factor? Maybe we need to do some math with that too. This is making my head hurt.
I know, right? It's like they're trying to trip us up. But let's think this through. If the customer has 10 x 52TB blades for a total of 328TB, and one blade fails, that should leave us with 9 x 52TB, which is 285TB. I think the answer is C.
Ugh, this question is so confusing! I hate having to figure out these storage capacity calculations, especially with blade failures and stuff. Why can't they just ask us simple multiple-choice questions?
Elfriede
10 months agoAmalia
10 months agoLacresha
10 months agoKarma
11 months agoDaniel
11 months agoValda
11 months agoYoulanda
12 months agoShasta
12 months agoCathrine
12 months agoGraciela
12 months agoAnnelle
12 months agoCory
10 months agoJesus
10 months agoGeorgene
10 months agoMartina
10 months agoCory
10 months agoJesus
10 months agoGeorgene
11 months ago