350-601 Storage Network Practice Question
An engineer is designing a SAN to connect hosts to two storage arrays for redundancy. The hosts are dual-attached to two MDS switches. Each storage array has two controllers, each with a single FC port. The engineer wants to avoid a single point of failure and ensure that each host can reach both storage controllers. Which design should be used?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the misconception that connecting both HBAs to the same switch is acceptable for redundancy, but the trap here is that a single switch failure would cause complete loss of connectivity, so each HBA must be on a different switch to eliminate that single point of failure.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Connect each host HBA to a different switch, and zone each HBA to both storage controller ports.
It provides full redundancy: each host HBA connects to a different MDS switch, and each HBA is zoned to both storage controller ports. This ensures that if a switch, HBA, or storage controller fails, the host can still reach at least one storage controller via the remaining path. The dual-zoning per HBA allows each host to access both controllers without a single point of failure, meeting the requirement for host-to-controller reachability.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Connect both HBAs of each host to the same switch, and create zones that include both HBAs and both storage ports.
Why it's wrong here
Single switch failure disconnects both HBAs from all storage.
- ✗
Connect each host HBA to a separate switch, and zone each HBA to one storage controller port.
Why it's wrong here
If a switch fails, the host loses access to its zoned controller; although the other HBA might still work, it's only zoned to one controller, reducing redundancy.
- ✗
Use NPV mode to simplify connectivity.
Why it's wrong here
NPV simplifies edge switch configuration but does not address redundancy at the core.
- ✗
Connect each host HBA to a different switch, and zone each HBA to a specific storage controller, using zones that cross VSANs.
Why it's wrong here
IVR unnecessarily complicates design and may introduce latency or misconfiguration.
- ✓
Connect each host HBA to a different switch, and zone each HBA to both storage controller ports.
Why this is correct
This provides redundant paths at every layer: HBA, switch, and controller.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every 350-601 question from scratch — 984 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 350-601 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 350-601 exam.