Which shared storage option is low cost, but often inflexible due to physical node distance?

Which shared storage option is low cost, but often inflexible due to physical node distance?

• A. SAS
• B. Fibre Channel
• C. iSCSI
• D. Cluster Shared Volume

Answer: (A)

The statement tests how cost and flexibility trade off in shared storage approaches. SAS is cheap because it uses direct-attached storage with straightforward cables and standard SAS/SCSI hardware, avoiding the more expensive SAN fabrics, switches, and IP networking used by other shared-storage options. But its flexibility is limited by how SAS hardware is wired: the storage is typically accessible to a small set of servers in the same enclosure or rack, and expanding access to additional nodes or distant machines requires more complex, and often costly, SAS fabrics. In other words, you get low cost, but you trade away easy, scalable sharing across distant nodes—hence the inflexibility described.

The statement tests how cost and flexibility trade off in shared storage approaches. SAS is cheap because it uses direct-attached storage with straightforward cables and standard SAS/SCSI hardware, avoiding the more expensive SAN fabrics, switches, and IP networking used by other shared-storage options. But its flexibility is limited by how SAS hardware is wired: the storage is typically accessible to a small set of servers in the same enclosure or rack, and expanding access to additional nodes or distant machines requires more complex, and often costly, SAS fabrics. In other words, you get low cost, but you trade away easy, scalable sharing across distant nodes—hence the inflexibility described.