NCP-MCI-7.5 Exam Dumps - Nutanix Certified Professional - Multicloud Infrastructure (NCP-MCI) 7.5

Nutanix documentation for Windows VM creation on AHV clearly states that when deploying the Nutanix VirtIO ISO for a VM using Secure Boot and UEFI, the SATA bus type must be used. Nutanix also documents that IDE is not supported when Secure Boot is enabled for UEFI mode, which reinforces the correct bus choice. This makes C. SATA the correct answer directly from the official procedure. ( Nutanix )

This is a compatibility question, not a performance question. It can be tempting to choose SCSI because it is common in virtual machine storage design, but Nutanix’s secure-boot provisioning guidance is explicit about the VirtIO ISO attachment method. The exam often checks whether the administrator remembers that the driver ISO itself has a required bus type in secure-boot scenarios. Since the supported method in the Nutanix documentation is to mount the VirtIO ISO on SATA, C is the correct answer. ( Nutanix )

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.

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 )

Nutanix documents Storage QoS as the correct mechanism to throttle VM I/O and prevent noisy-neighbor behavior. Nutanix also documents that storage policies in Prism Central apply to Categories, and that QoS settings such as throttled IOPS can be defined in the storage policy itself. That means the administrator can create one policy, set the IOPS cap, and apply it to the category assigned to Dev VMs. Current and future VMs with that category then inherit the same behavior without one-by-one configuration. That is exactly the scalable model described in option B.

The other options do not meet the requirement as cleanly. Replication factor affects resilience, not IOPS governance. Cloning one VM’s QoS is not a robust policy framework for future operations, especially when category-based automation already exists. Compression changes storage efficiency and sometimes performance characteristics, but it does not function as an enforceable per-VM IOPS cap. Because Nutanix explicitly ties QoS throttling to storage policies and category-based assignment, B is the documented and most maintainable answer.

Nutanix documentation on rebuild capacity reservation and resilient capacity emphasizes that some storage space must remain effectively protected so the cluster can recover from failures and maintain resiliency. If a cluster consumes all capacity beyond that protected threshold, it can reach a point where it no longer safely accepts writes because continuing to do so would violate resiliency guarantees. The symptoms in the question—stopped accepting writes and VM outages—align with a cluster hitting its resilient capacity limit, not merely an EC optimization limit. ( Nutanix )

This distinction matters. Erasure coding limits affect efficiency opportunities, but they do not by themselves explain the cluster refusing writes. A degraded container after a node failure may contribute to pressure, but the wording centers on cluster-wide behavior after rebuild-capacity reservation is enabled. Nutanix’s resiliency logic is designed to protect the cluster from entering an unsafe state, and one enforcement mechanism is to stop admitting additional writes when resilient capacity has been exhausted. Therefore, the most likely cause is C: the cluster has reached its resilient capacity limit. ( Nutanix )