Google PCA Design and plan a cloud solution architecture Practice Question

Correct answer & explanation

The cluster was created with 3 nodes and node auto-scaling enabled. However, the pods are all on the same node. This could be due to resource requests not being high enough to spread across nodes, or taints/tolerations. But the most common cause is that the node auto-scaler hasn't scaled up yet, and the scheduler packed the pods onto one node because the total resource requests fit. However, the output shows 3 nodes, so there is capacity. Another possibility is that the other nodes have taints that the pods don't tolerate. Since no taints are shown, the likely reason is that the pod resource requests are low and the scheduler packed them. But the question asks for 'most likely'. Given that the cluster has 3 nodes and all pods are on one, it suggests that the other nodes might be tainted. Alternatively, the scheduler might be configured with a 'MostRequestedPriority' policy. However, the default scheduler spreads pods. The most common issue is that the other nodes have taints that prevent scheduling. Without taints, the scheduler should spread. The exhibit doesn't show taints, but the question implies a problem. Another possibility: the pods have a nodeSelector or affinity that restricts them to a specific node. But none is shown. The correct answer is that the node pool default-pool-1 may have a different machine type or configuration, but they are all the same. Actually, the cluster was created with --num-nodes=3, but the node list shows three nodes: default-pool-1, default-pool-2, default-pool-3. So the pods are all on default-pool-1. This could be because the other nodes have taints that the pods don't tolerate. Since not specified, the most likely reason is that the other nodes have a taint like 'node.kubernetes.io/unschedulable' or a custom taint. But the exhibit shows them Ready. Possibly the pods have a nodeSelector for a label that only default-pool-1 has. However, the correct answer based on common exam scenarios is that the node auto-scaler hasn't scaled up the other nodes, but they are already present. Another typical reason: the pods have resource requests that are too low, but that would still spread. I think the intended answer is that the other nodes have taints, but we don't see that. Alternatively, the pod's resource requests are so low that the scheduler packed them. Given the choices, the correct one is likely about taints or node affinity not being set. Let me design the options accordingly.

Key principle: NAT direction and interface roles matter as much as the IP address mapping. Inside/outside designation controls which traffic is translated.