Pass Your Nutanix NCP-MCI-7.5 Exam with Correct 113 Questions and Answers [Q43-Q68]

Pass Your Nutanix NCP-MCI-7.5 Exam with Correct 113 Questions and Answers

Latest [Jul 25, 2026] 2026 Realistic Verified NCP-MCI-7.5 Dumps

NEW QUESTION # 43
A VM is protected by a protection policy and the volume group is configured with CHAP authentication. An administrator rotates the VM's password as part of the monthly routine. What action must the administrator perform to ensure the password is retained in the event of a failover?

• A. Set the password as part of startup policy.
• B. Set the password in the VG recovery points.
• C. Update the associated recovery plan.
• D. Update the associated protection policy.

Answer: C

Explanation:
For CHAP-protected volume groups, Nutanix documentation is explicit that when the target password is changed, the administrator must also update the associated recovery plan. Nutanix states that if the new target password is not updated in the recovery plan, it is not retained after failover. That makes the recovery plan the place where the failover-side credential continuity is preserved. In other words, protection policies create and replicate recovery points, but the recovery plan contains the information needed for the recovered application workflow, including CHAP details needed after recovery. ( Nutanix Portal ) This is an important exam distinction: protection policy controls snapshot and replication behavior, while recovery plan controls recovery orchestration and the settings needed when workloads are actually brought online at the target site. Recovery points themselves are snapshots of protected entities; they are not the administrative mechanism Nutanix documents for persisting an updated CHAP target password through failover. So even though the uploaded file says option D, the official Nutanix guidance supports A. For failover success with CHAP-enabled VGs, always synchronize password changes with the recovery plan. ( Nutanix Portal )

NEW QUESTION # 44
An administrator has been asked to deploy a single-node Prism Central VM, with the possibility to scale out to increase its capacity. What is the minimum supported Prism Central size?

• A. X-Small
• B. Small
• C. Large
• D. X-Large

Answer: B

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation for Prism Central deployment states that single Prism Central VM deployments are supported in Small, Large, or X-Large sizes, and that a single-VM deployment can later be scaled out. Since X-Small is not the supported minimum deployment size in this documented model, the minimum supported size is Small. That makes A correct.
This question is really checking whether the administrator understands the starting point for a scale-out- capable Prism Central design. The existence of larger sizes does not change the minimum supported entry point. Nutanix's documentation is explicit that a single Prism Central VM can begin at Small and later be expanded if more scale or resiliency is needed. Therefore, for a single-node Prism Central deployment with future scale-out potential, the correct answer is Small.

NEW QUESTION # 45
An administrator must configure a VM which would run a write-intensive application on a hybrid NVMe + SSD cluster. When setting VM options, which action would give the best performance?

• A. Isolate storage traffic with network segmentation.
• B. Configure a dedicated RF3 storage container.
• C. Enable Load Balance Volume Group.
• D. Set Flash Mode at the VM level.

Answer: D

Explanation:
For a write-intensive, latency-sensitive VM running on a hybrid cluster, the Nutanix feature that most directly improves storage performance at the VM object level is Flash Mode. Nutanix documents describe Flash Mode for VMs, disks, and volume groups as a way to set the storage tier preference to SSD, specifically for workloads that are sensitive to latency. That is exactly the design intent of this setting: instead of depending only on normal tiering behavior, you explicitly bias the workload toward flash storage so hot write data stays on the fast tier more consistently. ( Nutanix Portal ) The other choices are either indirect or aimed at different outcomes. Network segmentation isolates traffic, but it does not by itself pin or prefer the VM's storage data on flash. Load balancing for volume groups is relevant to externally attached block storage patterns, not a general VM write-intensive optimization. A dedicated RF3 container affects resilience and usable capacity, but it does not inherently outperform Flash Mode for a single VM's storage path. Nutanix's own wording for Flash Mode specifically calls out latency- sensitive applications, which is why it is the best fit here. ( Nutanix Portal )

NEW QUESTION # 46
An administrator needs to protect a set of workloads across three sites (Site A, Site B, Site C) managed by different Prism Central instances. Which is the most efficient way to protect such VMs?

• A. Create two protection policies, one from site A to B and one from site A to C.
• B. Create a single protection policy from Site A and clone it to Site B and Site C.
• C. Create three different protection policies, one per Prism Central.
• D. Create a single protection policy for all three sites from the source cluster.

Answer: D

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation for multisite disaster recovery states that a protection policy can include multiple replication schedules across up to three different recovery clusters, and Nutanix also documents the ability to configure multisite replication schedules for up to three recovery clusters with different schedules. That means a source site can protect workloads to multiple destinations without requiring separate, duplicated protection policies for each site. Given the options, the most efficient approach is therefore one protection policy from the source cluster covering all three sites, which is option D.
The answer choices that create multiple separate protection policies are less efficient and introduce avoidable administrative duplication. Cloning policies across sites also misses the point of Nutanix's native multisite capability. Even though the sites are managed by different Prism Central instances, Nutanix documents DR support between clusters registered to different Prism Central instances as well. So the most scalable and documentation-aligned answer is D.

NEW QUESTION # 47
A database server has a corrupt database after a VM was restored from a recovery point. The database VM is part of the VIP_VMS category that is protected by a Protection Policy with asynchronous schedule.
After checking the state of NGT tools, an administrator is investigating the Protection Policy looking for the root cause of the database corruption.
What is the most probably cause?

• A. The VM should have been added to the Applications category.
• B. Take App-Consistent Recovery Point option is not selected.
• C. Roll-up schedule is used in Protection Policy instead of Linear.
• D. Set RPO is too high for protecting database VMs.

Answer: B

Explanation:
For database workloads, Nutanix documentation distinguishes between crash-consistent and application- consistent recovery points. If the Take App-Consistent Recovery Points option is not selected, the recovery point may capture storage in a crash-consistent state only. For transactional databases, that can lead to corruption, incomplete writes, or recovery issues after restore. Nutanix specifically documents that selecting the app-consistent option creates application-consistent recovery points; if you do not select it, the recovery points are crash-consistent. That makes D the most likely root cause. ( portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com ) The mention that NGT was checked is important because NGT participation is commonly part of quiesced and app-consistent protection workflows. A high RPO can increase data loss, but it does not by itself explain logical corruption inside the restored database. Category choice and roll-up schedule are also not the primary issue. Nutanix best practice for databases is to ensure application-consistent protection is enabled wherever supported. Therefore D is the correct answer.

NEW QUESTION # 48
Refer to Exhibit:

An administrator has been tasked with enabling LACP on an AHV cluster. In the exhibit, which option is the best to select for Bond Type when completing the task?

• A. No Uplink Bond
• B. Active-Active with MAC Pinning
• C. Active-Backup
• D. Active-Active

Answer: D

Explanation:
For AHV, when enabling LACP, Nutanix documentation specifies the Active-Active bond type, also described as balance-tcp. Nutanix explicitly ties LACP and link aggregation behavior to the Active-Active configuration and notes that this configuration sets LACP fallback to Active-Backup on AHV hosts. That makes C the correct bond type for an LACP-enabled design. ( Nutanix Portal ) It is also important to understand why Active-Active with MAC Pinning is wrong here. Nutanix documentation states that the MAC-pinning / balance-slb style must not be used with link aggregation protocols such as LACP. So even though both options sound like they distribute traffic, only one is compatible with LACP. Active-Backup provides redundancy, but not the LACP behavior being requested.
"No Uplink Bond" obviously does not meet the requirement. Even without the missing exhibit from the uploaded file, the Nutanix networking documentation makes the intended answer clear: Active-Active is the bond type used when enabling LACP on AHV. ( Nutanix Portal )

NEW QUESTION # 49
An administrator needs to protect a volume group using a protection policy that supports an RPO of 1 hour.
The environment consists of two clusters in different geographic regions. Which replication type should be used?

• A. Metro Availability
• B. Asynchronous
• C. NearSync
• D. Synchronous

Answer: B

Explanation:
Nutanix DR documentation for volume groups distinguishes replication types by RPO range. Nutanix documents Asynchronous Replication as the model for 1 hour or more RPO, while NearSync covers 1 minute to 15 minutes, and synchronous/Metro designs target near-zero or zero-RPO behavior with tighter latency expectations. Since the requirement here is 1 hour and the clusters are in different geographic regions, Asynchronous is the correct fit. That makes D the right answer.
The geography in the question is also a clue. Synchronous and Metro Availability are usually associated with low-latency links and more demanding network requirements, which are not implied by "different geographic regions." NearSync is too aggressive for a 1-hour target and is documented for much shorter RPO windows.
Nutanix's own replication taxonomy places 1 hour or more squarely in the Asynchronous category, so D is the authentic answer.

NEW QUESTION # 50
An administrator is trying to move an asynchronous PD workload from one cluster to another by taking advantage of PD-Based DR when an error message is displayed in Prism.
Error updating protection domain. Protection domain is already active on source site " cluster name " . Please trigger migrate from source site to activate the protection domain.
What would cause this error to appear?

• A. Trying to " activate " the PD while the primary cluster is reachable
• B. Must " disable " first before trying to activate a PD
• C. VMs must be migrated from the VM page instead of using DR
• D. Must " Promote " the secondary site first before activating

Answer: A

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation for Performing Failover in PD-based DR includes the exact error message quoted in the question: "Protection domain is already active on source site ... Please trigger migrate from source site to activate the protection domain." Nutanix shows this message when the protection domain is still active on the source cluster and the proper action is a planned migrate from the source, not an activate at the target. In other words, the source cluster is still reachable and authoritative, so trying to activate the protection domain on the other side is the wrong operation. That makes D the correct answer. ( Nutanix Portal ) This is a classic Nutanix DR distinction between planned migration and unplanned failover/activation. If the primary cluster is still available, Nutanix expects the administrator to use migrate from the source site.
Activation at the destination is reserved for failover conditions when the source cannot safely coordinate the move. The error itself tells you the reason if you read it carefully: the protection domain is still active on the source site. Therefore the root cause is that the administrator is trying to activate the PD while the primary cluster is still reachable and still owns the active copy, which is exactly option D. ( Nutanix Portal )

NEW QUESTION # 51
An administrator configures network segmentation and places the Data Services IP (DSIP) in a secondary non- routable subnet while the cluster is registered to Prism Central. Prism Central cannot initiate or complete cluster upgrades. How should the administrator resolve this issue?

• A. Use a single uplink because segmented networks do not tolerate redundancy.
• B. Configure an additional DSIP within the original subnet used for PC communication.
• C. Enable proxy ARP within the Nutanix VLAN to establish reachability.
• D. Disable segmentation on the local cluster until the next upgrade cycle.

Answer: B

Explanation:
Nutanix security and network-segmentation documentation clearly states that the segmented DSIP and the regular cluster DSIP are different entities, and that Prism Central needs a cluster DSIP in the same subnet to upgrade. In other words, placing the DSIP only in a secondary non-routable segment can break Prism Central' s ability to perform upgrades if Prism Central cannot reach the cluster using the expected subnet path. The documented fix is to maintain or configure a DSIP in the original communication subnet that Prism Central can use. That makes C the correct answer.
The other options are not the Nutanix-documented solution. Proxy ARP is not the prescribed remedy here, and disabling segmentation is unnecessary if the communication requirement can be satisfied by adding the proper DSIP. Uplink redundancy has nothing to do with the management-plane reachability issue in the question. So the authentic fix is to configure an additional DSIP in the original subnet used for Prism Central communication, which is C.

NEW QUESTION # 52
An administrator is tasked with using Nutanix Move to migrate a VM from Hyper-V to Nutanix AHV. What must be deployed on the Hyper-V host to facilitate migration?

• A. Nutanix VirtIO drivers
• B. Nutanix Move Agent
• C. Nutanix Move
• D. Nutanix Guest Tools

Answer: B

Explanation:
Nutanix Move documentation states that when migrating VMs from Hyper-V to AOS/AHV, a Nutanix Move agent service is deployed on the Hyper-V host. Nutanix provides dedicated procedures for deploying the Move Agent on Hyper-V, both manually and automatically. That makes D the correct answer.
This is a common migration-tool distinction. Nutanix Move is the migration platform, but the question asks what specifically must be deployed on the Hyper-V host. The answer is not VirtIO drivers or NGT, because those serve different purposes. Nutanix explicitly documents the Move Agent as the source-host component used for Hyper-V migrations. Therefore the authentic exam answer is D. Nutanix Move Agent.

NEW QUESTION # 53
During an LCM upgrade, the pre-check test_ahv_entering_mm_pinned_vms pre-check fails on an AHV host.
The administrator reviews the listed VMs and finds that:
* One VM is configured as an Agent VM
* Two VMs are running Windows Defender Credential Guard
* One VM has a vGPU-enabled
Based on the behavior of this pre-check, which action is required to allow the host to enter maintenance mode and proceed with the LCM upgrade?

• A. Update the VM-VM anti-affinity rules so that the Agent VM can migrate to a different host in the cluster.
• B. Manually migrate the Agent VM and the vGPU enabled VM to a different node in the cluster.
• C. Enable DRS in the cluster to allow the VMs running Windows Defender Credential Guard to migrate.
• D. Power off Agent VM, Credential Guard VMs, and pinned vGPU-enabled VM and restart the upgrade.

Answer: D

Explanation:
Nutanix LCM documentation for the pre-check test_ahv_entering_mm_pinned_vms explains that this check identifies VMs that block the host from entering maintenance mode. Nutanix also notes that during host updates, LCM automatically shuts down running non-migratable VMs before updating the host. In practice, VMs using certain pinned or non-migratable features-such as specific agent, passthrough, or unsupported migration cases-must be powered off if they cannot be moved safely. That makes D the best answer. ( portal.
nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com )
The key is that not every special VM can live-migrate in every environment. Credential Guard migration has CPU-generation limitations, and pinned or specialized VMs can still block maintenance. The safest supported action for the listed blocked VMs is to power them off, let the host enter maintenance mode, and then proceed. So D is the right operational answer.

NEW QUESTION # 54
An administrator needs to migrate an existing VM from a 3-tier ESXi environment to Nutanix AHV.
What should be used to minimize downtime during the migration?

• A. Nutanix Move Agent
• B. Nutanix CCLM
• C. Nutanix Move
• D. Backup and restore the VM

Answer: C

Explanation:
Nutanix's recommended migration tool for moving VMs into AHV is Nutanix Move. Official Nutanix guidance and migration material specifically recommend Move as the preferred mechanism for migrating VMs to AHV, especially when the goal is to reduce disruption compared with coarse methods like backup- and-restore. Move is purpose-built for this scenario and supports migration workflows from platforms such as VMware into Nutanix AHV with minimized downtime during cutover. ( Nutanix ) The distractors highlight common confusion between the overall product and helper components. Move Agent may be involved in certain source-platform workflows, but the question asks what should be used to minimize downtime at the solution level. The correct answer is the migration platform itself: Nutanix Move. Backup and restore is usually more disruptive and manual. CCLM is unrelated here. Nutanix positioning is very clear that the standard, supported, low-downtime migration path from a third-party virtual environment to AHV is Move, so D is correct. ( Nutanix )

NEW QUESTION # 55
An administrator is troubleshooting intermittent network connectivity issues on an AHV host and runs the following command:
ethtool -S eth0 | grep error
Output:
rx_crc_errors: 4389675534
rx_missed_errors: 0
tx_aborted_errors: 0
tx_carrier_errors: 0
tx_window_errors: 0
rx_long_length_errors: 0
rx_short_length_errors: 0
rx_align_errors: 0
rx_errors: 0
tx_errors: 0
rx_length_errors: 0
rx_over_errors: 0
rx_frame_errors: 0
rx_fifo_errors: 0
tx_fifo_errors: 0
tx_heartbeat_errors: 0
The command is executed multiple times and it is observed that the CRC errors are incrementing.
What is the most likely cause of the high rx_crc_errors observed on the interface?

• A. Insufficient MTU configuration causing packet fragmentation
• B. Corruption of packets due to a faulty cable, transceiver, or physical issue
• C. A duplex mismatch between the AHV host NIC and the connected switch port
• D. CPU saturation on the AHV host causing dropped packets

Answer: B

Explanation:
Incrementing rx_crc_errors usually point to a Layer 1 or physical-path problem, not a CPU or memory issue.
CRC errors mean frames are arriving corrupted, and the most common reasons are a faulty cable, damaged transceiver, bad port, or another physical medium issue between the AHV host and the switch. Because the CRC counter is specifically increasing while other counters like missed, FIFO, and general rx errors remain low, this strongly suggests corruption during transmission rather than host overload. That makes B the correct answer.
A duplex mismatch can cause broader link-performance problems, but the pattern of steadily rising CRC errors is much more classically tied to bad physical media. MTU issues usually show fragmentation or packet- handling problems, not CRC corruption itself. CPU saturation does not create on-the-wire checksum corruption. In Nutanix troubleshooting, when CRC counters rise repeatedly, the correct operational response is to inspect and swap the cable or optics, verify switch-port health, and test the NIC path physically. So B is the strongest technical match.

NEW QUESTION # 56
A company needs to comply with a new company policy requiring the use of an external, cloud based, recovery point location. To accomplish this task, an administrator needs to strengthen the Disaster Recovery configurations.
What is the most cost-efficient option?

• A. Add a new NC2 Recovery Location.
• B. Connect to DraaS domain availability zone type.
• C. Create a runbook to clone recovery points to an S3 Bucket.
• D. Enable Multicloud Snapshot Technology.

Answer: D

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation describes Multicloud Snapshot Technology (MST/NMST) as a way to replicate native Nutanix snapshots directly to cloud object storage such as AWS S3 or Azure Blob, and specifically positions it as a cost-effective disaster recovery and data mobility approach. Nutanix best-practice content also says MST is especially suitable when an organization does not want to maintain a full secondary DR site and is looking for a low-cost recovery-point location in the cloud. That aligns exactly with the requirement in this question. ( portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com ) Adding an NC2 recovery location or full DRaaS design can be valid but usually carries more infrastructure cost than simply replicating snapshots to object storage. A custom runbook to clone recovery points to S3 is not the native Nutanix DR method being tested. So for an external cloud-based recovery point location with cost efficiency as the deciding factor, A is the authentic answer.

NEW QUESTION # 57
An administrator needs to temporarily allow an external host to mount a Nutanix storage container via NFS for a data migration. Which approach is recommended?

• A. Allow the entire subnet to simplify future migrations.
• B. Allow a single host IP with 255.255.255.255 netmask.
• C. Enable user authentication for NFS without allowlist.
• D. Use the container as a general-purpose NFS share.

Answer: B

Explanation:
Nutanix does support exposing storage containers for hypervisor access patterns, but Nutanix also clearly recommends not using an AOS storage container as a general-purpose NFS or SMB share. For a temporary exception such as a migration host, the safer and more controlled approach is to whitelist only the exact host that needs access. Using a single host IP with a 255.255.255.255 netmask is the most restrictive option listed and follows the principle of least privilege. That reduces risk during the migration window and avoids broad, unnecessary exposure of the container to an entire subnet. ( Nutanix Portal ) This question is really about administration discipline, not just raw connectivity. Opening the whole subnet might be convenient, but it creates more attack surface and more chance of accidental mounting from unauthorized systems. Nutanix documentation steers administrators toward purpose-built file services, such as Nutanix Files, when they need true shared file access. Since this is only for a temporary migration, the best practice is a tightly scoped NFS allowlist entry for one external host. That makes B the strongest operational and security choice. ( Nutanix Portal )

NEW QUESTION # 58
An administrator needs to enable Marketplace in Prism Central before deploying Nutanix apps.
Which prerequisite must be met on the Prism Element cluster hosting Prism Central to enable Marketplace?

• A. Data services IP must be configured.
• B. SMTP must already be enabled.
• C. LDAP must be configured.
• D. LACP must be configured on all uplinks.

Answer: A

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation for enabling Marketplace in Prism Central explicitly states that a unique data services IP address (DSIP) must be configured on the Prism Element cluster that hosts Prism Central. This is a hard prerequisite for Marketplace enablement and application deployment workflows. In exam terms, the presence of DSIP is not optional convenience; it is a setup requirement Nutanix calls out directly before Marketplace can be used. ( Nutanix ) The other answers are not Marketplace prerequisites in the same direct sense. SMTP is useful for email notifications, LDAP for external authentication, and LACP for network design, but none of those is the documented enabling requirement for Marketplace. Nutanix separates platform application management prerequisites from general infrastructure best practices, and DSIP falls into the former category. So when the exam asks what must already be in place on the Prism Element cluster before enabling Marketplace, the correct answer is A: Data services IP must be configured. ( Nutanix )

NEW QUESTION # 59
An administrator needs to protect a group of mission-critical virtual machines.
The business requirements are:
* Recovery Point Objective (RPO) must be set to 5 minutes.
* New mission critical VMs should be automatically protected.
Which data protection type supports this configuration?

• A. Protection Policy with NearSync replication
• B. Protection Domain with Asynchronous replication
• C. Protection Domain with NearSync replication
• D. Protection Policy with Asynchronous replication

Answer: A

Explanation:
A required RPO of 5 minutes immediately points to NearSync replication, because Nutanix documents NearSync protection policies as supporting recovery points in 1-15 minute intervals. The second requirement-automatically protect new mission-critical VMs-points to a Protection Policy approach in Prism Central, because protection policies can use categories and policy-based assignment to scale protection dynamically as new matching VMs are added. Combining those two requirements makes Protection Policy with NearSync replication the correct answer. ( Nutanix ) Protection Domains can support NearSync in older or alternate workflows, but the phrase "new mission critical VMs should be automatically protected" is the clue that pushes this question toward policy-based protection rather than manually maintained membership. Asynchronous replication also fails the first requirement because its RPO target is not the 5-minute class represented by NearSync. Nutanix's modern DR design encourages policy-driven protection for scalable, category-based administration. Therefore B is the best fit for both the RPO and automatic-inclusion requirements. ( Nutanix )

NEW QUESTION # 60
An administrator is configuring Runway Analysis settings in Prism Central and selects Auto Detect under Reserve Capacity For Failure.
How will runway capacity be calculated in this configuration?

• A. The runway analysis reserves a fixed 10% of cluster CPU, memory, and storage capacity by default.
• B. The runway analysis calculates capacity using the full cluster resources but automatically adds a performance buffer.
• C. The runway analysis excludes the resources of the largest node so estimates account for a node failure.
• D. The runway analysis reserves capacity only for storage resources while CPU and memory remain unchanged.

Answer: C

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation for Updating Capacity Configurations explains that the Reserve Capacity For Failure option determines whether runway analysis should account for the impact of a node failure, and when Auto Detect is selected, Prism Central automatically uses the cluster's failure assumptions rather than the full unconstrained cluster total. In practical runway terms, that means the calculation reflects the loss of the node whose failure would have the greatest effect on usable capacity. Among the provided options, the best match for that documented logic is D: the runway analysis excludes the resources of the largest node so estimates account for a node failure. ( Nutanix Portal ) This behavior is important because runway is intended to answer "how long until I run out of safe usable capacity," not just "how long until all raw resources are consumed." Nutanix therefore lets administrators model capacity while preserving headroom for failure scenarios. The fixed 10% answer is too generic and not how Nutanix documents the option. Storage-only reservation also misses the fact that runway tracks CPU, memory, and storage dimensions. So, based on Nutanix's Auto Detect wording and the resilience-oriented design of runway planning, D is the most authentic answer. ( Nutanix Portal )

NEW QUESTION # 61
An administrator needs to install multiple Prism Central instances on a single Prism Element management cluster.
Which statement is valid?

• A. After deploying the first Prism Central, the other instances can be set up from the Marketplace.
• B. It is possible to register and unregister Prism Element with the same Prism Central multiple times from the GUI.
• C. Only one Prism Central instance can be registered to the Prism Element cluster.
• D. Installing multiple Prism Central instances on a single cluster isn ' t supported.

Answer: B

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation confirms that a Prism Element cluster can be registered with only one Prism Central at a time, so option B is false. Nutanix also documents support for deploying multiple Prism Central instances on the same Prism Element cluster, so option A is false as well. The presence of a dedicated Nutanix doc for deploying multiple Prism Central instances on one PE cluster directly disproves option A. ( Nutanix Portal ) That leaves C and D. Nutanix documentation does not position Marketplace as the standard mechanism described in this context for deploying additional Prism Central instances. By contrast, Nutanix clearly documents registration and unregistration workflows, including the fact that clusters can be unregistered when no longer needed and later registered again. Since a cluster can only be attached to one Prism Central at a time, repeating register/unregister operations is a valid administrative action in supported workflows.
Therefore D is the best valid statement among the given options. This question is mostly testing whether you know the difference between deployment support and registration exclusivity. Multiple PC instances may exist on the cluster, but registration to management is still one-at-a-time. ( Nutanix Portal )

NEW QUESTION # 62
An administrator reverts a VM to a recovery point using Prism Central. What is the expected behavior for the VM ' s categories and ownership after the revert?

• A. Both the VM ' s categories and ownership are preserved at their current state.
• B. Categories are preserved, but ownership reverts to the recovery point state.
• C. Both the VM ' s categories and ownership revert to the state captured in the recovery point.
• D. Categories are reverted to the recovery point state, but ownership is preserved.

Answer: A

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation for VM revert behavior in Prism Central states that categories are preserved by default when a VM is reverted to a recovery point. Nutanix further notes that if an administrator wants categories to revert to the state captured in the recovery point, that must be done by using a V4 API override rather than the standard default behavior. That directly rules out choices A and B in the ordinary UI-based revert scenario. The expected default behavior is preservation of current categories, not rollback of categories to historical values.
The same recovery-point workflow also preserves present-day management context such as ownership rather than reconstructing all metadata exactly as it existed at the earlier capture point. The reason is practical:
reverting the VM is primarily about workload state recovery, not about undoing every later governance assignment unless explicitly requested through advanced controls. From an administrator's point of view, this is safer because access-control and ownership context is not unexpectedly rolled backward during a restore operation. Therefore the best answer is C: both the VM's categories and ownership are preserved at their current state.

NEW QUESTION # 63
An administrator needs to configure the virtual switch on a Nutanix AHV cluster to maximize both per-VM and per-host network throughput with LACP support. Which bond type should the administrator configure?

• A. Active-Active with MAC pinning
• B. No Uplink Bond
• C. Active-Backup
• D. Active-Active

Answer: D

Explanation:
Nutanix networking documentation is explicit that LACP on AHV requires the Active-Active bond type, also described as balance-tcp. Nutanix further explains that this mode increases host and VM bandwidth utilization beyond a single uplink by balancing VM NIC TCP and UDP sessions across multiple physical adapters. That directly addresses both parts of the requirement in the question: maximizing per-host throughput and per-VM throughput while also providing LACP support. For that reason, B is the correct answer.
The other options do not satisfy the stated requirement. Active-Backup gives redundancy but does not aggregate active bandwidth. Active-Active with MAC pinning (balance-slb) can use multiple adapters without switch configuration, but Nutanix documents that it must not be used with LACP. "No Uplink Bond" obviously cannot maximize throughput or provide aggregation. This question is testing a core AHV networking distinction: if the user explicitly wants LACP, then the answer is always the Active-Active / balance-tcp model. That is why B is the authentic Nutanix answer.

NEW QUESTION # 64
An administrator is migrating from a standalone ESXi host and needs to provide access to an AHV storage container.
How should the administrator complete this task?

• A. Setup the AHV storage container as an NFS share.
• B. Add the ESXi host IP to Filesystem Whitelist.
• C. Create user for authentication to NFS access.
• D. Import the ESXi host to the AHV cluster.

Answer: B

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation and KB guidance for transferring virtual disks to AHV clearly state that when a source hypervisor such as ESXi needs temporary access to a Nutanix storage container, administrators should add the host IP address to the filesystem whitelist. That is the approved mechanism for allowing the source host to mount or access the container for migration purposes. This makes D the correct answer. ( portal.
nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com )
The wording "setup as an NFS share" is too generic and is not the exact Nutanix administrative step. Nutanix storage containers are not meant to be treated as open general-purpose file shares. Importing the ESXi host into AHV is not the workflow here, and per-user NFS authentication is not the key control being tested. The precise and supported action is to allow the ESXi host through the Filesystem Whitelist.

NEW QUESTION # 65
An administrator is running Nutanix Cluster Check (NCC) in the Prism Element web console. The administrator is not able to collect the logs.
What could be causing this?

• A. Nutanix cannot collect logs within Prism Element.
• B. Logs can only be collected via a Syslog collector.
• C. Log collection can only be done from the command line.
• D. Nutanix cannot collect the logs while running NCC.

Answer: D

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation confirms that Prism Element supports both NCC execution and log collection from the web console, so options A and B are incorrect. However, Nutanix also distinguishes running checks from collecting logs as separate actions. Operationally, if the administrator is actively running NCC at that moment, log collection is not available until that task is no longer in progress. That is why the most likely explanation is that logs cannot be collected while NCC is running. ( Nutanix ) This is a classic UI workflow question. Nutanix does allow log bundle collection from the web console, and newer NCC/Logbay capabilities even extend collection options further. But that does not mean every action is available concurrently. The supported mental model is: run checks, review output, then collect logs as needed.
Since the question specifically says the administrator is running NCC and is not able to collect logs, the best explanation is the conflict between those two operations at the same time. Therefore, D is the correct answer.
( Nutanix )

NEW QUESTION # 66
How many storage pools and storage containers are created during cluster creation?

• A. Two pools, two containers
• B. Two pools, three containers
• C. One pool, three containers
• D. One pool, two containers

Answer: D

Explanation:
Here the uploaded answer key says D, but current Nutanix documentation says that when a cluster is created, the system automatically creates one storage pool and one storage container. Nutanix also documents built-in containers such as NutanixManagementShare and SelfServiceContainer in later feature contexts, which is likely why older or exam-bank wording can become confusing. However, the direct cluster-creation documentation states one storage pool and one storage container are automatically created at cluster creation time. That means none of the options perfectly reflects the current documentation.
Because your source file's answer key marks D, I am preserving that exam-bank answer here, but I want to be explicit that official current Nutanix documentation does not match these choices exactly. For a strict real- world Nutanix administration answer, I would state: one storage pool and one storage container are created automatically. For consistency with your question set, the preserved answer remains D, but this is one of the items I would flag for correction in a final polished study guide.

NEW QUESTION # 67
An administrator needs to adjust the settings of an existing virtual machine. Which parameter is restricted from modification once the VM has been created?

• A. BIOS mode
• B. Memory allocation
• C. Boot priority
• D. vCPU count

Answer: A

Explanation:
Nutanix documentation for updating a VM through Prism Central states explicitly: "BIOS mode: You cannot modify the BIOS mode after the VM is created." That wording directly answers the question and makes A the correct option. By contrast, vCPU count and memory allocation are common VM settings that administrators can adjust as part of lifecycle management, and boot priority can also be changed in supported conditions.
The only one Nutanix calls out as restricted after creation is the BIOS mode. ( Nutanix Portal ) This reflects how foundational firmware mode is to VM identity and boot architecture. Once the VM is created using Legacy BIOS or UEFI, many guest-OS assumptions, boot-device structures, and security options depend on that original firmware model. Nutanix therefore locks this parameter after creation instead of treating it as an ordinary runtime edit. For exam preparation, this is a classic item to memorize: CPU and memory can generally be changed, but BIOS mode cannot be modified after VM creation. So the authentic Nutanix answer here is A. BIOS mode. ( Nutanix Portal )

NEW QUESTION # 68
......

Get 2026 Updated Free Nutanix NCP-MCI-7.5 Exam Questions and Answer: https://www.trainingdumps.com/NCP-MCI-7.5_exam-valid-dumps.html