Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Splunk Exam SPLK-2002 Topic 9 Question 75 Discussion

Actual exam question for Splunk's SPLK-2002 exam
Question #: 75
Topic #: 9
[All SPLK-2002 Questions]

A Splunk deployment is being architected and the customer will be using Splunk Enterprise Security (ES) and Splunk IT Service Intelligence (ITSI). Through data onboarding and sizing, it is determined that over 200 discrete KPIs will be tracked by ITSI and 1TB of data per day by ES. What topology ensures a scalable and performant deployment?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A, C

Contribute your Thoughts:

Ciara
1 months ago
Clearly option C is the way to go. I mean, who needs performance or scalability when you can just cram everything onto one search head cluster? It'll be fine, right? *nervous laughter*
upvoted 0 times
Hyman
9 days ago
Yeah, option C seems risky. It's better to separate the workloads to ensure a more stable and efficient deployment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenia
10 days ago
I agree, having dedicated search head clusters for each application will prevent any performance issues that may arise from overloading a single search head.
upvoted 0 times
...
Derrick
19 days ago
I think option B is the best choice. Having separate search head clusters for ITSI and ES will ensure better performance and scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kate
1 months ago
I'm with Alfred on this one. Two search head clusters is the way to go. It's the only option that ensures you can scale and handle the data load without everything grinding to a halt.
upvoted 0 times
Nadine
3 days ago
Yeah, I think splitting up the search head clusters is the way to go to ensure everything runs smoothly with that amount of data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daryl
5 days ago
I think having separate search head clusters for ITSI and ES makes the most sense in terms of scalability and performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Danilo
1 months ago
I agree with you, having two search head clusters is definitely the best option for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Peggy
2 months ago
Oh man, option D is just begging for trouble. One search head handling both ITSI and ES? That's like trying to fit an elephant and a giraffe in a Smart car. Not happening!
upvoted 0 times
...
Alfred
2 months ago
Two search head clusters, one for each, is definitely the way to go. You don't want to risk overloading a single search head with that kind of data volume. Separating them is the smart move.
upvoted 0 times
Christiane
19 days ago
Two search head clusters, one for each, is definitely the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margret
23 days ago
B) Two search head clusters, one for ITSI and one for ES.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vilma
25 days ago
A) Two search heads, one for ITSI and one for ES.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Frederica
2 months ago
Choosing a single search head with both ITSI and ES installed seems like a recipe for disaster with that much data. I'd go with option B to keep them separated for better scalability and performance.
upvoted 0 times
Millie
1 months ago
Yeah, it's important to keep them separated to avoid any performance issues with that much data being processed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stanford
2 months ago
I agree, having separate search head clusters for ITSI and ES would definitely help with scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Queen
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe option C is more efficient as it allows for easier management of both ITSI and ES on a single search head cluster.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nelida
3 months ago
I agree with Ty, having separate search head clusters for ITSI and ES makes sense for scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ty
3 months ago
I think option B is the best choice.
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