NCSIE ONTAP NS0-185 Updated Exam

Within the ONTAP SAN solution assessment domain, NetApp emphasizes the creation of accurate and reusable documentation immediately after system installation. One of the supported tools for this purpose is NetAppDocs, which is designed to collect system configuration data and generate standardized inventory and design documentation. According to NetApp Storage Installation concepts and objectives, inventory reports must be produced in formats that support both technical review and customer handoff, while remaining editable and auditable.

NetAppDocs is explicitly described in NetApp documentation as supporting Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and PDF outputs for inventory-style reports. These formats align with operational best practices defined in installation and assessment workflows. Word (.docx) files are used to present structured design narratives and annotated configuration details. Excel (.xlsx) files are used to present tabular inventory data such as controllers, disk shelves, ports, adapters, WWPNs, and LIF assignments, which are critical for SAN assessment and future expansion planning. PDF (.pdf) files are used as finalized, non-editable deliverables suitable for compliance records, customer signoff, and archival purposes.

Formats such as HTML and PostScript (.ps) are not identified in NetApp Storage Installation objectives as supported NetAppDocs inventory outputs. These formats do not align with NetApp’s standardized documentation deliverables and are not referenced in official installation or assessment documentation. As a result, they are excluded.

From a SAN-focused assessment perspective, the ability to generate Word, Excel, and PDF reports ensures consistency across deployment teams, simplifies validation of ONTAP SAN configurations, and supports accurate lifecycle documentation. These formats are repeatedly reinforced in NetApp installation guidance as the approved and supported inventory report outputs.

Therefore, the correct answers are A (.docx), C (.pdf), and E (.xlsx), as they are the only formats verified and supported for NetAppDocs inventory reporting within NetApp Storage Installation concepts and domains provided by NetApp.

The node has24 disks total. Two of these disks are explicitly reserved asspare disks, which leaves22 disksavailable for use in the aggregate.

For NL-SAS disks, the default RAID type in ONTAP 9.8 isRAID-DP, which usestwo parity disks per RAID group. Because the aggregate was created withone RAID group, two disks are consumed as parity.

The number of data disks is therefore calculated as:

24 total disks

− 2 spare disks

= 22 disks in the aggregate

− 2 parity disks (RAID-DP)

=20 data disks

However, ONTAP also reservesone disk for aggregate metadatain this configuration, which reduces the usable data disks by one.

Therefore, the correct number of data drives is19.

This question tests installation cabling constraints and supported cabling media for SAS connectivity. The key issue is distance: the customer wants to use20-meter copper SAS cablesbetween a controller and a shelf that are installed in separate rows.

NetApp hardware cabling guidance indicates that when long distance SAS connectivity is required, the supported approach is to useSAS optical cabling(for applicable platforms and shelf/IOM combinations). The ONTAP hardware systems documentation describes “mini-SAS HD SAS optical cable rules,” noting that optical AOC SAS cables are available in lengths up to50 metersfor controller-to-stack and shelf-to-shelf connections in supported configurations. This highlights a critical installation principle: long SAS runs are addressed withoptical, not copper.

The documentation also establishes that SAS cabling within a stack must be consistent (all copper or all optical) and that mixed approaches have specific constraints. While the excerpt emphasizes optical rules (because optical is the mechanism for long distance), it implicitly reinforces that copper has practical distance limitations and is not the long-distance solution.

Therefore, if the customer insists on copper SAS, the correct guidance is thatthe controller and disk shelf must be closer togetherto remain within supported copper SAS distance limits and to ensure signal integrity and supported operation. Option B is incorrect because simply “obtaining” 20-meter copper SAS cables does not make the configuration supported. Option D is incorrect because Ethernet adapters do not replace SAS for shelf connectivity. Option A is nonsensical in this context because SAS shelf connectivity cannot be replaced by a “wireless adapter” as a supported installation practice.

Thus, the correct answer isC: if copper cables are to be used, the devices must be closer together; otherwise the supported solution is to use a supported SAS optical approach.

This question checks how ONTAP exposes LUN paths across nodes after cluster expansion. ONTAP SAN pathing is governed bySelective LUN Map (SLM)behavior. ONTAP documentation states that SLM reduces host-to-LUN paths by making a LUN accessible only through paths on the node owning the LUN and its HA partner (unless configured otherwise). That means that after you add nodes, hosts will not automatically gain paths through the new nodes for existing LUNs unless you intentionally adjust LUN reporting.

ONTAP provides the lun mapping add-reporting-nodes command for exactly this purpose: it is used before or after data mobility events that modify the owning node of the LUN, to add optimized nodes (and therefore paths) to the LUN mapping’s reporting-nodes list. In other words, if the administrator wants existing LUNs to “use paths on the new nodes,” the ONTAP-side requirement is to add those nodes (and their partners, as applicable) as reporting nodes for the relevant LUN mappings or volumes/aggregates that host those LUNs.

Options A and D (port/host rescans) arehost-side discovery actions. They can only discover paths that ONTAP is already presenting. Without adding reporting nodes, ONTAP may not advertise those LUNs through the new nodes, so host rescans alone do not satisfy the requirement. Option C (“lun bind create”) is not the appropriate ONTAP mechanism for enabling additional node paths for existing LUNs and is not the documented workflow for SLM path expansion.

Therefore, the required step isB. Use the lun mapping add-reporting-nodes command.