Nutanix Updated NCP-MCI-6.10 Exam Questions and Answers by philippa

Nutanix LCM architecture supports firmware, BIOS, BMC, disk controller, and drive updates only when the environment includes multiple nodes that can provide redundancy during the upgrade process. The LCM documentation specifies that firmware upgrades require node evacuation and rolling upgrade sequencing so that workloads remain available. A single-node cluster does not have node-level redundancy and therefore cannot support firmware upgrade operations that require putting a node into maintenance automatically. The guidance clearly states that “firmware upgrades are not supported for single-node clusters because the host cannot be safely placed into a maintenance mode during the LCM workflow.” LCM is supported for software inventory, but not for firmware activation on single-node clusters. This explains why no firmware updates appear in the LCM interface.

The best way to test the performance of a Linux VM that is underperforming at the storage level on an ESXi cluster, while minimizing downtime, is to migrate the VM to an AHV-based cluster. This allows leveraging Nutanix-native storage optimizations and hypervisor capabilities of AHV.

From theNutanix Enterprise Cloud Administration (ECA)course materials:

“AHV and Nutanix storage integration is natively optimized for performance, leveraging capabilities like data locality, I/O path enhancements, and advanced metadata management. Migrating workloads from ESXi to AHV can often resolve performance bottlenecks associated with storage I/O.”

Additionally:

“Using the Nutanix Move tool, administrators can migrate running VMs between different hypervisors (e.g., ESXi to AHV) with minimal downtime and fully automated steps, reducing the operational burden.”

Increasing vCPUs would not address storage-level performance issues, and collapsing disks would require significant reconfiguration and VM downtime. vDisk sharding is not directly user-configurable and not applicable in this scenario.

Nutanix Data Protection enforces strict snapshot lifecycle controls to ensure recovery integrity. The system prevents deletion of any snapshot that is actively referenced by a running operation. The documentation states:

“Snapshots that are part of an active recovery or restore workflow cannot be deleted until the operation completes, as they are required to maintain data consistency and restore points.”

This includes DR failover tests, restorations, or live recovery workflows. Corrupted snapshots do not cause deletion failure; the system can still delete a corrupted snapshot unless it’s attached to an active workflow. Ransomware affects guest data, not the snapshot metadata in Prism. Approval policies do not block snapshot deletion unless tied to automation policies, which is rare and would produce a different error.

Therefore, active recovery operations are the most common and most accurate cause when deletion is blocked.

VM templates in Nutanix are supported only when the VM’s disks reside on storage containers configured with Replication Factor 2 (RF2) or higher.

Option C (VM has disks on RF2 containers) is correct:

VM templates requirea minimum RF2 for fault tolerance.

RF1 containers do not meet Nutanix best practices for VM templates.

Option A is incorrect:

VMs protected by Protection Domains can be cloned, but this is different from creating a VM template.

Option B is incorrect:

Agent VMs (e.g., Witness VMs) or Prism Central cannot be used as VM templates.

Option D is incorrect:

Nutanix VM templates are natively supported on AHV, not ESXi.