Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Palo Alto Networks Exam PSE-Platform Topic 1 Question 57 Discussion

Actual exam question for Palo Alto Networks's PSE Platform Exam exam
Question #: 57
Topic #: 1
[All PSE Platform Exam Questions]

A price sensitive customer wants to prevent attacks on a windows 2008 Virtual Server. The server will max out at 100Mbps but needs to have 45,000 sessions to connect to multiple hosts within a data center

Which VM instance should be used to secure the network by this customer?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

Contribute your Thoughts:

Carolynn
3 hours ago
I think the customer should go for VM-300 because it can handle more sessions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dawne
22 days ago
Oof, 45,000 sessions is a lot. I'm getting sweaty just thinking about the server load. Hopefully the customer has a good IT team to monitor and optimize the virtual server.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sueann
22 days ago
I hear you, but you know what they say, 'when in doubt, go for the biggest and baddest'! (laughs) Maybe the VM-300 is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Linwood
23 days ago
It's a good thing the customer is price-sensitive, because the VM-300 is going to be the most expensive option. I'd start with the VM-200 and see if that meets their needs. If not, then the VM-300 might be the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Reita
4 days ago
A) VM-200
upvoted 0 times
...
Wai
5 days ago
If VM-200 doesn't work out, they can always consider upgrading to VM-300 for higher performance. It's better to start with the cheaper option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisandra
6 days ago
C) VM-300
upvoted 0 times
...
Marge
7 days ago
Agreed, VM-200 seems to be a good balance between performance and cost. The customer should try this option first.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sheldon
8 days ago
A) VM-200
upvoted 0 times
...
Marguerita
9 days ago
I think the VM-100 might not be powerful enough to handle the 45,000 sessions. VM-200 sounds like a better choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hillary
10 days ago
B) VM-100
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Mitsue
24 days ago
Personally, I'm not a fan of these types of questions. They're too vague and don't give us enough information to make a confident decision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Estrella
24 days ago
Yeah, I agree. The VM-100 and VM-50 don't seem powerful enough to handle 45,000 sessions and 100Mbps. The only question is whether the VM-300 is overkill or if the VM-200 will be sufficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Britt
25 days ago
I'm with you on that, but I'm also considering option B, the VM-100. It might be a better fit if the customer is more price-sensitive.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherita
25 days ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. The customer needs a lot of sessions and high throughput, so I'm thinking either the VM-300 or the VM-200 would be the best options here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shasta
26 days ago
I'm leaning towards option C, the VM-300, since it's the highest-end option presented. But I'm not 100% sure if that's the right choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Francis
28 days ago
Yeah, I'm a bit stumped too. We need more details about the specific requirements and the capabilities of each VM instance to make an informed decision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elvera
1 months ago
Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. The customer is looking to secure a Windows 2008 Virtual Server that needs to handle a lot of sessions and bandwidth. I'm not sure which VM instance would be the best fit based on the information provided.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77