Nutanix NCP-MCI-7.5 Online Access

Nutanix documentation clearly states that guest VMs with GPU passthrough cannot be migrated to other hosts in the cluster. By contrast, Nutanix does support live migration for some vGPU- enabled VMs under supported conditions, but not for passthrough GPUs. That distinction is exactly what this question is testing. Therefore the correct answer is D. ( portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com )

This is a high-value exam distinction: vGPU and GPU passthrough are not interchangeable in migration behavior. Memory overcommitment and vNUMA may affect placement or performance, but they are not the documented hard stop presented here. If a VM uses GPU passthrough, live migration is not supported, so the administrator cannot evacuate it the way they can with ordinary VMs.

Nutanix documentation for Updating Capacity Configurations explains that the Reserve Capacity For Failure option determines whether runway analysis should account for the impact of a node failure, and when Auto Detect is selected, Prism Central automatically uses the cluster’s failure assumptions rather than the full unconstrained cluster total. In practical runway terms, that means the calculation reflects the loss of the node whose failure would have the greatest effect on usable capacity. Among the provided options, the best match for that documented logic is D: the runway analysis excludes the resources of the largest node so estimates account for a node failure. ( Nutanix Portal )

This behavior is important because runway is intended to answer “how long until I run out of safe usable capacity,” not just “how long until all raw resources are consumed.” Nutanix therefore lets administrators model capacity while preserving headroom for failure scenarios. The fixed 10% answer is too generic and not how Nutanix documents the option. Storage-only reservation also misses the fact that runway tracks CPU, memory, and storage dimensions. So, based on Nutanix’s Auto Detect wording and the resilience-oriented design of runway planning, D is the most authentic answer. ( Nutanix Portal )

Here the uploaded answer key says B, but Nutanix documentation recommends at least five stable time sources that have a high degree of accuracy and are reachable over a reliable network. That exact wording appears in Nutanix time synchronization guidance and related KB material. Because the question specifically asks for the minimum number that constitutes a good configuration ensuring a high degree of accuracy, the Nutanix documentation supports 5, which is option C. ( portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com )

Three servers is a common generic IT answer, but the Nutanix wording in its own docs is more specific and recommends five. For an NCP-MCI study document meant to stay authentic to Nutanix guidance, C is the correct answer.

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.