Nutanix NCP-MCI-7.5 Dumps Questions Answers

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 )

Nutanix documentation for log collection in Prism Central and related Logbay guidance supports collecting logs for a specific time range, which is exactly what this question requires to minimize noise and capture only the relevant 30-minute incident window. Nutanix also documents that when sending logs to Nutanix Support FTP, the administrator can enter a support case number, allowing the bundle to be attached to the case without manual repackaging. That makes D the strongest answer: use the alert details to identify the impacted entities and timestamps, collect the logs for that time window, and upload them using the support-case workflow. ( Nutanix Portal )

The other options do not produce the right diagnostic artifact. Auto-resolve only affects alert state, not log quality. Tightening thresholds may generate more alerts, but it does not replace collecting platform logs. Exporting a CSV of alerts can help summarize incidents, but it is not the primary evidence Nutanix Support needs for performance troubleshooting. Nutanix’s supported model is very clear: identify the incident timing, collect the appropriate logs for that window, and upload the bundle in a support-compatible way. Therefore D is the authentic answer from a Nutanix troubleshooting workflow perspective. ( Nutanix Portal )

Nutanix documentation explicitly states that in Prism Central, when you are using more than 80% of Prism Central capacity, a red PC Under-provisioned warning icon appears. That means this alert is not describing the managed cluster’s resilient capacity, nor is it about a storage over-provisioning ratio on the Prism Central VM. It is specifically tied to the Prism Central instance itself approaching its own capacity limit. ( Nutanix Portal )

This is a good example of monitoring terminology that can be misleading on the exam. Because the administrator is looking at future resource needs for clusters, it is easy to assume the warning is about the cluster being under-provisioned. However, Nutanix labels this condition as PC Under-provisioned, and the documentation ties it to Prism Central consumption, not the cluster’s resilience threshold or a failed scale-out event. Operationally, the response is to review Prism Central sizing and determine whether scale-out or resizing is required to support the monitored environment. Based on the Nutanix documentation wording, B is the correct answer. ( Nutanix Portal )