A healthcare organization uses ONTAP to host both Windows imaging servers (SMB) and Linux-based medical systems (NFS). They require unified storage access, complete tenant isolation, and SVM-level DR replication to a secondary site. Which design satisfies all requirements?

• A. Two SVMs (one NFS, one SMB) sharing the same volumes
• B. FlexGroup volume with NFS and SMB multiprotocol disabled
• C. One SVM with both NFS and SMB enabled, SnapMirror replication to a destination SVM
• D. One SVM replicated with SnapVault and two FlexClone copies per protocol

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is using a single storage virtual machine (SVM) to provide unified access for both SMB and NFS while also delivering DR at the SVM level. By enabling both SMB and NFS on one SVM, Windows imaging servers and Linux-based systems can share the same storage namespace without needing separate SVMs for each protocol. Tenant isolation can be achieved inside that same SVM by organizing data into per-tenant volumes with strict export policies and access controls, so each tenant only sees their own data while still benefiting from a single point of management.

For DR, using SnapMirror to replicate the entire SVM to a destination SVM ensures that all data, configurations, and protocol access are mirrored together. This provides consistent failover of both SMB and NFS data and preserves the isolation and access policies at the destination, meeting the requirement for SVM-level DR replication.

The other designs fall short because they either separate the protocols across multiple SVMs (complicating unified access and potentially weakening centralized isolation), disable multiprotocol access on a FlexGroup (preventing true unified access for both SMB and NFS), or rely on backups and clones rather than continuous DR replication at the SVM level (which does not meet the DR requirement).