McAfee Secure

CNCF CKA Bundle

Exam Code: CKA

Exam Name Certified Kubernetes Administrator

Certification Provider: CNCF

Corresponding Certification: CKA

CNCF CKA Bundle $44.99
CKA Sample 1 CKA Sample 2 CKA Sample 3 CKA Sample 4 CKA Sample 5 CKA Sample 6 CKA Sample 7 CKA Sample 8 CKA Sample 9 CKA Sample 10

100% CNCF CKA Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real CKA Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    CKA Questions & Answers

    58 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual CKA exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • CKA Video Course

    CKA Training Course

    138 Video Lectures

    CKA Video Course is developed by CNCF Professionals to help you pass the CKA exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Certified Kubernetes Administrator exam.
  • Study Guide

    CKA Study Guide

    268 PDF Pages

    Developed by industry experts, this 268-page guide spells out in painstaking detail all of the information you need to ace CKA exam.

Certified Kubernetes Administrator (CKA) Practice Tests

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Total Cost: $194.97
Bundle Price: $149.98

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    58 Questions

    $124.99
  • CKA Video Course

    Training Course

    138 Video Lectures

    $39.99
  • Study Guide

    Study Guide

    268 PDF Pages

    $29.99

CNCF CKA Practice Test 81

Question 800

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Pod metrics-api in namespace observability is Pending or failing after a PVC attachment change; inspect actual volume and mount references before modifying claims. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Maintain validated StorageClass definitions and review CSI driver compatibility during upgrades.
  2. Verify expansion support and back up data before resizing important volumes.
  3. Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases.
  4. Track CSI deployment readiness and upgrade compatibility with cluster releases.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n observability describe pod metrics-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths. The relevant mechanism is: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This routine guards against another mechanism: StorageClasses specify provisioning behavior separately from an individual claim, including binding policy and reclaim defaults. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. The matching preventive check is “Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases”.

B:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. Here the sustained control must address: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. Choose “Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases”.

D:

This routine guards against another mechanism: StorageClass provisioner names must correspond to installed CSI provisioning components; the class object alone cannot create storage. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. The matching preventive check is “Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases”.

Question 801

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Pod dispatch-api in namespace fulfillment is Pending or failing after a PVC attachment change; inspect actual volume and mount references before modifying claims. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe pod dispatch-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths.
  2. Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-pvc.yaml after confirming storageClassName: fast-block and requested capacity 5Gi.
  3. Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC.
  4. Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe pod dispatch-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. Validate the result with: Run kubectl -n fulfillment get pod dispatch-api -o yaml and verify claimed volumes match container mount names. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The offered action targets: A PVC expresses a namespaced storage request and dynamic provisioning depends on a compatible StorageClass and provisioner. The case facts point instead to: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. Implement “Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe pod dispatch-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths” to address that specific condition.

C:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The reported case instead depends on: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. The action that directly addresses it is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe pod dispatch-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths”.

D:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe pod dispatch-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths”.

Question 802

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Pod dispatch-api in namespace fulfillment is Pending or failing after a PVC attachment change; inspect actual volume and mount references before modifying claims. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success.
  2. Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name.
  3. A PVC expresses a namespaced storage request and dynamic provisioning depends on a compatible StorageClass and provisioner.
  4. The default class admission behavior can assign storageClassName to new PVCs that omit it; concurrent defaults create ambiguous behavior.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe pod dispatch-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run kubectl -n fulfillment get pod dispatch-api -o yaml and verify claimed volumes match container mount names.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name.

C:

A PVC expresses a namespaced storage request and dynamic provisioning depends on a compatible StorageClass and provisioner. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name.

D:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: The default class admission behavior can assign storageClassName to new PVCs that omit it; concurrent defaults create ambiguous behavior. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name.

Question 803

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Pod dispatch-api in namespace fulfillment is Pending or failing after a PVC attachment change; inspect actual volume and mount references before modifying claims. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Inspect provisioner, volumeBindingMode and allowVolumeExpansion for standard-block and compare with the planned PVC.
  2. Run kubectl -n observability get pvc metrics-data and confirm Bound status and the selected StorageClass.
  3. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get pod dispatch-api -o yaml and verify claimed volumes match container mount names.
  4. Run kubectl -n observability get pvc metrics-data and inspect capacity plus resize conditions until complete.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Run kubectl -n fulfillment get pod dispatch-api -o yaml and verify claimed volumes match container mount names. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. The intended action is: Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe pod dispatch-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: StorageClasses specify provisioning behavior separately from an individual claim, including binding policy and reclaim defaults. The current issue is governed by: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. Its decisive check is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get pod dispatch-api -o yaml and verify claimed volumes match container mount names”.

B:

The alternative verifies a different condition: A PVC expresses a namespaced storage request and dynamic provisioning depends on a compatible StorageClass and provisioner. The current case instead depends on: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. Confirm that “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get pod dispatch-api -o yaml and verify claimed volumes match container mount names”.

D:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. The current issue is governed by: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. Its decisive check is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get pod dispatch-api -o yaml and verify claimed volumes match container mount names”.

Question 804

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Pod dispatch-api in namespace fulfillment is Pending or failing after a PVC attachment change; inspect actual volume and mount references before modifying claims. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Track CSI deployment readiness and upgrade compatibility with cluster releases.
  2. Validate storage class capability, quotas and capacity before workload scheduling.
  3. Verify expansion support and back up data before resizing important volumes.
  4. Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe pod dispatch-api and compare volume claim names with container mount paths. The relevant mechanism is: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: StorageClass provisioner names must correspond to installed CSI provisioning components; the class object alone cannot create storage. Here the sustained control must address: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. Choose “Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases”.

B:

That safeguard is relevant to: A PVC expresses a namespaced storage request and dynamic provisioning depends on a compatible StorageClass and provisioner. The current failure instead follows from: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. Its prevention measure is “Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases”.

C:

This routine guards against another mechanism: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. The matching preventive check is “Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases”.

Question 805

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: The lab has VolumeSnapshot CRDs and a compatible CSI driver; a reviewed snapshot manifest ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml should snapshot PVC invoice-data in ledger. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl -n ledger patch pvc invoice-data --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"resources":{"requests":{"storage":"5Gi"}}}}'.
  2. Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC.
  3. Run kubectl -n observability patch pvc metrics-data --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"volumeName":"pv-metrics"}}' after checking capacity, access modes and storage class compatibility.
  4. Run kubectl patch persistentvolume pv-ledger --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"persistentVolumeReclaimPolicy":"Retain"}}' before releasing the claim.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Validate the result with: Run kubectl -n ledger get volumesnapshot invoice-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The offered action targets: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. The case facts point instead to: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Implement “Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC” to address that specific condition.

C:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: PVC volumeName prebinding requests a specific PV but does not bypass binding compatibility and availability checks. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC”.

D:

The offered action targets: The reclaim policy controls the fate of backing storage after PVC release; Retain requires an explicit cleanup and reuse process. The case facts point instead to: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Implement “Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC” to address that specific condition.

Question 806

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: The lab has VolumeSnapshot CRDs and a compatible CSI driver; a reviewed snapshot manifest ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml should snapshot PVC invoice-data in ledger. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps.
  2. StatefulSets give stable identities and can generate per-Pod PVCs; a shared Deployment volume would not automatically provide this ownership model.
  3. VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success.
  4. PVC volumeName prebinding requests a specific PV but does not bypass binding compatibility and availability checks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run kubectl -n ledger get volumesnapshot invoice-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle describes a separate cause: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. The reported condition is governed by: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

B:

StatefulSets give stable identities and can generate per-Pod PVCs; a shared Deployment volume would not automatically provide this ownership model. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success.

D:

This principle describes a separate cause: PVC volumeName prebinding requests a specific PV but does not bypass binding compatibility and availability checks. The reported condition is governed by: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

Question 807

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: The lab has VolumeSnapshot CRDs and a compatible CSI driver; a reviewed snapshot manifest ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml should snapshot PVC invoice-data in ledger. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Run kubectl -n observability get pvc metrics-data and confirm Bound status and the selected StorageClass.
  2. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get pvc dispatch-data and inspect capacity plus resize conditions until complete.
  3. Run kubectl -n ledger get pvc invoice-data and inspect capacity plus resize conditions until complete.
  4. Run kubectl -n ledger get volumesnapshot invoice-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Run kubectl -n ledger get volumesnapshot invoice-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The intended action is: Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The alternative verifies a different condition: A PVC expresses a namespaced storage request and dynamic provisioning depends on a compatible StorageClass and provisioner. The current case instead depends on: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Confirm that “Run kubectl -n ledger get volumesnapshot invoice-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it”.

B:

That test belongs to another control with this basis: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. In the current case, the governing reason is: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The direct verification is “Run kubectl -n ledger get volumesnapshot invoice-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it”.

C:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. The current issue is governed by: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Its decisive check is “Run kubectl -n ledger get volumesnapshot invoice-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it”.

Question 808

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: The lab has VolumeSnapshot CRDs and a compatible CSI driver; a reviewed snapshot manifest ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml should snapshot PVC invoice-data in ledger. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Periodically restore test snapshots and verify backup consistency for the application.
  2. Verify expansion support and back up data before resizing important volumes.
  3. Plan StatefulSet volume retention and recovery separately from controller deletion.
  4. Add Pod schema checks and mount-level acceptance tests to storage workload releases.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Periodically restore test snapshots and verify backup consistency for the application. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./storage/invoice-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC. The relevant mechanism is: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This routine guards against another mechanism: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. The recurring exposure in the current case is: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The matching preventive check is “Periodically restore test snapshots and verify backup consistency for the application”.

C:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: StatefulSets give stable identities and can generate per-Pod PVCs; a shared Deployment volume would not automatically provide this ownership model. Here the sustained control must address: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Choose “Periodically restore test snapshots and verify backup consistency for the application”.

D:

That safeguard is relevant to: Pod volume definitions and volumeMount references must agree; a valid PVC cannot help a container with an invalid mount path or volume name. The current failure instead follows from: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Its prevention measure is “Periodically restore test snapshots and verify backup consistency for the application”.

Question 809

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: The lab has VolumeSnapshot CRDs and a compatible CSI driver; a reviewed snapshot manifest ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml should snapshot PVC metrics-data in observability. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl patch persistentvolume pv-metrics --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"persistentVolumeReclaimPolicy":"Retain"}}' before releasing the claim.
  2. Run kubectl -n ledger patch pvc invoice-data --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"volumeName":"pv-ledger"}}' after checking capacity, access modes and storage class compatibility.
  3. Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC.
  4. Run kubectl -n observability patch pvc metrics-data --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"resources":{"requests":{"storage":"10Gi"}}}}'.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. Validate the result with: Run kubectl -n observability get volumesnapshot metrics-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: The reclaim policy controls the fate of backing storage after PVC release; Retain requires an explicit cleanup and reuse process. The reported case instead depends on: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The action that directly addresses it is “Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC”.

B:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: PVC volumeName prebinding requests a specific PV but does not bypass binding compatibility and availability checks. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC”.

D:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: PVC expansion requests larger provisioned storage without deleting the claim; the CSI driver and filesystem may require additional expansion steps. The reported case instead depends on: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The action that directly addresses it is “Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC”.

Question 810

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: The lab has VolumeSnapshot CRDs and a compatible CSI driver; a reviewed snapshot manifest ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml should snapshot PVC metrics-data in observability. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. PVC volumeName prebinding requests a specific PV but does not bypass binding compatibility and availability checks.
  2. A PVC expresses a namespaced storage request and dynamic provisioning depends on a compatible StorageClass and provisioner.
  3. StorageClasses specify provisioning behavior separately from an individual claim, including binding policy and reclaim defaults.
  4. VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./storage/metrics-api-snapshot.yaml after verifying the snapshot class and source PVC. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run kubectl -n observability get volumesnapshot metrics-snapshot -o yaml and confirm readyToUse: true before relying on it.

Incorrect Answers

A:

PVC volumeName prebinding requests a specific PV but does not bypass binding compatibility and availability checks. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success.

B:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: A PVC expresses a namespaced storage request and dynamic provisioning depends on a compatible StorageClass and provisioner. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success.

C:

This principle describes a separate cause: StorageClasses specify provisioning behavior separately from an individual claim, including binding policy and reclaim defaults. The reported condition is governed by: VolumeSnapshot is a CSI extension object rather than a core PVC backup; controller and driver capabilities determine success. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.