An organization uses on-premises AHV-based clusters and also has workloads in public cloud environments.
The security team wants a single place to review security posture and compliance across the multi-cloud footprint, and they want the analysis to support security operations workflows rather than only showing cluster-level posture.
The administrator needs to pick the most appropriate Nutanix capability for this requirement.
Which option best aligns to the requirement?

• A. Use the Prism Central Security Dashboard, to provide the same multi-cloud compliance view and cover Azure and AWS accounts by default.
• B. Use Flow Network Security policy views as microsegmentation policy listings inherently provide a full security posture and compliance assessment.
• C. Use Prism Central Alerts and Events to provide a complete compliance picture across all environments and replaces posture management.
• D. Use Security Central to provide visibility into security posture and compliance for a multi-cloud environment (including public clouds).

An administrator has 16 hosts in a cluster, including four undersized older hosts that needs to be removed from the cluster. Unfortunately new servers will take more than six months to be procured.
What policy should be defined within Prism Central to prevent five mission critical VMs from ever running on the older hosts?

• A. VM-Host Anti-Affinity Policy
• B. VM-VM Anti-Affinity Policy
• C. VM-Host Affinity Policy
• D. VM-VM Affinity Policy

What is the minimum number of nodes required for a storage container with Replication Factor 2 and Erasure Coding?

• A. 3
• B. 6
• C. 4
• D. 5

After scaling out Prism Central to improve resiliency, which additional configuration should an administrator complete?

• A. Configure a Protection Domain to include all Prism Central VMs.
• B. Set up VM-VM anti-affinity rules between Prism Central VMs.
• C. Deploy the Witness service in a separate failure domain.
• D. Enable High Availability Reservations for Prism Element cluster.

An administrator manages a shared AHV environment where Dev workloads must not exceed 2,000 IOPS per VM during business hours to prevent noisy-neighbor impact on Prod.
The administrator already uses categories to group VMs (for example, category Env=Dev) and wants a scalable approach that applies consistent throttling to all current and future Dev VMs without configuring each VM individually.
Which approach best meets the requirement?

• A. Set Storage QoS attributes on one representative Dev VM, then clone that VM so all Dev VMs inherit the QoS settings.
• B. Configure a storage policy with QoS throttling and associate the policy to the category used by Dev VMs.
• C. Increase the replication factor for Dev workloads so additional copies distribute I/O and cap IOPS.
• D. Enable compression on the storage container hosting Dev VMs to reduce latency and enforce an effective IOPS limit.