NCP-MCI-7.5 Nutanix Certified Professional - Multicloud Infrastructure (NCP-MCI) 7.5 Questions and Answers

The Nutanix setting designed to protect a portion of space for a particular container is Reserved Capacity (Logical). The role of this setting is to logically reserve capacity for that container so that other containers sharing the same storage pool cannot consume all the available space first. In exam language, this is the option that guarantees a minimum amount of usable headroom remains allocated for that container’s future growth, independent of the consumption behavior of neighboring containers. ( Nutanix Portal )

The distractors represent metrics or controls with different purposes. Advertised Capacity influences how much capacity is presented logically, but it does not reserve space. Throttled IOPS controls performance, not capacity isolation. Total Space (Physical) is simply a capacity measure and offers no reservation behavior. Nutanix separates storage efficiency, capacity reporting, and capacity reservation into different controls, so administrators need to choose the one aligned to the requirement. Because the question asks for a guarantee that one container retains a minimum amount of available storage even when others are consuming space, the correct answer is Reserved Capacity (Logical). ( Nutanix Portal )

For storage-dense nodes, Nutanix allocates CVM resources to ensure the Controller VM can handle storage services efficiently. Official Nutanix documentation shows the Controller VM requires a minimum of 12 vCPUs, and Foundation documentation describes CVM vCPU allocation ranges that increase based on platform characteristics and workload needs. In a dense-storage design with 100 TB per node, the exam-aligned answer is 12 logical cores for the CVM. ( Nutanix Portal )

The key concept here is not simply memorizing one number, but understanding why dense storage affects CVM sizing. The CVM runs critical storage-path services, metadata handling, and data services operations. As node capacity increases, Nutanix expects sufficient CPU to sustain those functions under load. Options 6 and 8 are too small for the documented baseline direction shown in official guidance, while 14 is not the standard answer expected for this scenario. For exam purposes, when the question frames a dense storage node with 100 TB, the supported sizing answer is 12. ( Nutanix Portal )

The requirement is not to keep the mission-critical VMs together or apart from each other; it is to prevent them from running on a specific set of older hosts. In Nutanix Prism Central policy terms, that is a VM-Host Anti-Affinity Policy. Anti-affinity at the VM-host level allows administrators to mark selected hosts as unsuitable targets for selected VMs, which is exactly what the scenario requires. Therefore C is the correct answer.

The distractors all target the wrong relationship. VM-VM affinity and anti-affinity control how VMs are placed relative to other VMs, not whether they can run on particular hosts. VM-Host Affinity would express a positive preference or requirement to run on a chosen host group, but the question is framed negatively: the VMs must never run on the older hosts. Nutanix’s policy model supports this exact exclusion use case through VM-Host Anti-Affinity. In a long refresh delay scenario, this is the safest operational control to keep sensitive workloads off weaker or undesirable hardware without removing those hosts from the cluster immediately. Therefore C is the authentic answer.

Nutanix documentation for Erasure Coding is explicit: a cluster must have a minimum of four nodes to enable erasure coding, and for RF2 the minimum remains four nodes. Nutanix further explains that RF3 with erasure coding requires six nodes, which helps distinguish the two thresholds clearly for exam purposes. Since the question asks specifically about Replication Factor 2 and Erasure Coding, the minimum supported node count is 4. ( Nutanix )

This question is testing one of the most common node-count rules in Nutanix storage efficiency. A three-node cluster can provide RF2 storage, but that does not automatically mean erasure coding is available there. Erasure coding introduces its own resiliency and stripe-width requirements, and Nutanix sets the minimum at four nodes for RF2. The values 5 and 6 are distractors meant to confuse RF2 and RF3 rules. Because the official requirement is four nodes for RF2 EC, the correct answer is B. ( Nutanix )

Nutanix documentation for Prism Central deployment states that single Prism Central VM deployments are supported in Small, Large, or X-Large sizes, and that a single-VM deployment can later be scaled out. Since X-Small is not the supported minimum deployment size in this documented model, the minimum supported size is Small. That makes A correct.

This question is really checking whether the administrator understands the starting point for a scale-out-capable Prism Central design. The existence of larger sizes does not change the minimum supported entry point. Nutanix’s documentation is explicit that a single Prism Central VM can begin at Small and later be expanded if more scale or resiliency is needed. Therefore, for a single-node Prism Central deployment with future scale-out potential, the correct answer is Small.

Nutanix documentation describes Multicloud Snapshot Technology (MST/NMST) as a way to replicate native Nutanix snapshots directly to cloud object storage such as AWS S3 or Azure Blob, and specifically positions it as a cost-effective disaster recovery and data mobility approach. Nutanix best-practice content also says MST is especially suitable when an organization does not want to maintain a full secondary DR site and is looking for a low-cost recovery-point location in the cloud. That aligns exactly with the requirement in this question. ( portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com )

Adding an NC2 recovery location or full DRaaS design can be valid but usually carries more infrastructure cost than simply replicating snapshots to object storage. A custom runbook to clone recovery points to S3 is not the native Nutanix DR method being tested. So for an external cloud-based recovery point location with cost efficiency as the deciding factor, A is the authentic answer.

When Prism Central is scaled out for resiliency, the design goal is not only to have multiple Prism Central VMs, but also to ensure they are not placed together in a way that creates a common point of failure. Nutanix documentation around anti-affinity policies explains that VM-VM anti-affinity is used to keep selected VMs from running on the same host. In a scaled-out Prism Central deployment, this placement separation is the logical next step to strengthen resiliency, because it prevents the Prism Central instances from collapsing onto the same physical host and failing together during a node outage. ( Nutanix )

The other options are either unrelated or not the primary required follow-up. Witness Service is associated with Metro Availability and DR designs, not with the baseline requirement of distributing Prism Central VMs after scale-out. Protection Domain protection may be useful in some cases, but it does not solve co-location risk. HA reservations on the hosting Prism Element cluster address restart capacity, not placement diversity. The most direct resiliency improvement after scaling out Prism Central is to enforce separation between the Prism Central VMs. That is why D is the best answer. ( Nutanix )

Nutanix DR documentation for volume groups distinguishes replication types by RPO range. Nutanix documents Asynchronous Replication as the model for 1 hour or more RPO, while NearSync covers 1 minute to 15 minutes, and synchronous/Metro designs target near-zero or zero-RPO behavior with tighter latency expectations. Since the requirement here is 1 hour and the clusters are in different geographic regions, Asynchronous is the correct fit. That makes D the right answer.

The geography in the question is also a clue. Synchronous and Metro Availability are usually associated with low-latency links and more demanding network requirements, which are not implied by “different geographic regions.” NearSync is too aggressive for a 1-hour target and is documented for much shorter RPO windows. Nutanix’s own replication taxonomy places 1 hour or more squarely in the Asynchronous category, so D is the authentic answer.

The requirement is very specific: the organization wants a single place to review security posture and compliance across on-prem Nutanix plus public cloud environments, and the output should support security operations workflows, not just basic cluster health views. Nutanix documents Security Central as the product designed for exactly this purpose. The official guide states that Security Central provides a unified view of security posture across Nutanix private cloud and AWS and Azure public clouds, and it is positioned as a multi-cloud security and compliance capability rather than just a local Prism view.

The other answers are narrower than what the question asks. Flow Network Security policy views focus on segmentation and policy state, not full multi-cloud posture management. Prism Central alerts and events are useful operational signals, but they do not replace a posture-and-compliance platform. The standard Prism Central security dashboard is not the same as Security Central’s broader cloud-security scope. Because Nutanix explicitly documents Security Central as covering Nutanix, AWS, and Azure with posture and compliance visibility, D is the authentic answer.

Nutanix documentation for log collection in Prism Central and related Logbay guidance supports collecting logs for a specific time range, which is exactly what this question requires to minimize noise and capture only the relevant 30-minute incident window. Nutanix also documents that when sending logs to Nutanix Support FTP, the administrator can enter a support case number, allowing the bundle to be attached to the case without manual repackaging. That makes D the strongest answer: use the alert details to identify the impacted entities and timestamps, collect the logs for that time window, and upload them using the support-case workflow. ( Nutanix Portal )

The other options do not produce the right diagnostic artifact. Auto-resolve only affects alert state, not log quality. Tightening thresholds may generate more alerts, but it does not replace collecting platform logs. Exporting a CSV of alerts can help summarize incidents, but it is not the primary evidence Nutanix Support needs for performance troubleshooting. Nutanix’s supported model is very clear: identify the incident timing, collect the appropriate logs for that window, and upload the bundle in a support-compatible way. Therefore D is the authentic answer from a Nutanix troubleshooting workflow perspective. ( Nutanix Portal )

Here the uploaded answer key says D, but official Nutanix documentation supports B. Nutanix documents that for enhanced security of ROBO environments (typically 1- or 2-node clusters), administrators should select Native KMS (remote) for software-based encryption. Nutanix also states in KMS considerations that software encryption using Native KMS is supported for ROBO deployments using the Native KMS (remote) KMS type. Because the question explicitly describes a 2-node ROBO cluster and requires the keys to be stored outside the cluster, the Nutanix-authentic answer is B. Native KMS (remote).

An external KMS is valid in many enterprise encryption designs, but this question is more specific: it asks for the KMS type Nutanix supports and recommends for software encryption on a ROBO cluster. On that narrow requirement, the official docs point to Native KMS (remote) rather than External KMS. So for an authentic study guide aligned to Nutanix documentation, B is the correct answer.

Nutanix Move documentation states that when migrating VMs from Hyper-V to AOS/AHV, a Nutanix Move agent service is deployed on the Hyper-V host. Nutanix provides dedicated procedures for deploying the Move Agent on Hyper-V, both manually and automatically. That makes D the correct answer.

This is a common migration-tool distinction. Nutanix Move is the migration platform, but the question asks what specifically must be deployed on the Hyper-V host. The answer is not VirtIO drivers or NGT, because those serve different purposes. Nutanix explicitly documents the Move Agent as the source-host component used for Hyper-V migrations. Therefore the authentic exam answer is D. Nutanix Move Agent.

Nutanix security documentation for configuring OpenLDAP authentication in Prism Central clearly states that Prism Central uses a service account to query the OpenLDAP directory and that this service account must have the required read permissions on the directory service. That means the correct account type is not a generic admin, root, or Nutanix local account, but a dedicated service account created for the integration. Therefore D is the authentic answer.

This is an important design principle in Nutanix authentication integration. A service account is preferred because it supports controlled, non-interactive access with appropriate least-privilege permissions and stable directory lookup behavior. Using a root or broad admin account would be poor security practice and is not how Nutanix documents the setup. The service account’s role is not to log into Prism as a user but to let Prism Central query the directory safely and consistently. Because the official documentation names that account type directly, D. Service Account is the correct exam answer.

Nutanix documentation for multisite disaster recovery states that a protection policy can include multiple replication schedules across up to three different recovery clusters, and Nutanix also documents the ability to configure multisite replication schedules for up to three recovery clusters with different schedules. That means a source site can protect workloads to multiple destinations without requiring separate, duplicated protection policies for each site. Given the options, the most efficient approach is therefore one protection policy from the source cluster covering all three sites, which is option D.

The answer choices that create multiple separate protection policies are less efficient and introduce avoidable administrative duplication. Cloning policies across sites also misses the point of Nutanix’s native multisite capability. Even though the sites are managed by different Prism Central instances, Nutanix documents DR support between clusters registered to different Prism Central instances as well. So the most scalable and documentation-aligned answer is D.

Nutanix documentation for VM revert behavior in Prism Central states that categories are preserved by default when a VM is reverted to a recovery point. Nutanix further notes that if an administrator wants categories to revert to the state captured in the recovery point, that must be done by using a V4 API override rather than the standard default behavior. That directly rules out choices A and B in the ordinary UI-based revert scenario. The expected default behavior is preservation of current categories, not rollback of categories to historical values.

The same recovery-point workflow also preserves present-day management context such as ownership rather than reconstructing all metadata exactly as it existed at the earlier capture point. The reason is practical: reverting the VM is primarily about workload state recovery, not about undoing every later governance assignment unless explicitly requested through advanced controls. From an administrator’s point of view, this is safer because access-control and ownership context is not unexpectedly rolled backward during a restore operation. Therefore the best answer is C: both the VM’s categories and ownership are preserved at their current state.

For a write-intensive, latency-sensitive VM running on a hybrid cluster, the Nutanix feature that most directly improves storage performance at the VM object level is Flash Mode. Nutanix documents describe Flash Mode for VMs, disks, and volume groups as a way to set the storage tier preference to SSD, specifically for workloads that are sensitive to latency. That is exactly the design intent of this setting: instead of depending only on normal tiering behavior, you explicitly bias the workload toward flash storage so hot write data stays on the fast tier more consistently. ( Nutanix Portal )

The other choices are either indirect or aimed at different outcomes. Network segmentation isolates traffic, but it does not by itself pin or prefer the VM’s storage data on flash. Load balancing for volume groups is relevant to externally attached block storage patterns, not a general VM write-intensive optimization. A dedicated RF3 container affects resilience and usable capacity, but it does not inherently outperform Flash Mode for a single VM’s storage path. Nutanix’s own wording for Flash Mode specifically calls out latency-sensitive applications, which is why it is the best fit here. ( Nutanix Portal )

In Prism Central VM efficiency and behavioral-learning views, Nutanix groups inefficient VMs into categories such as over-provisioned, inactive, bully, and constrained. A constrained VM is one that does not have enough resources for its workload and is therefore experiencing pressure. Nutanix documentation ties constrained status to signs such as CPU readiness, memory swapping, or other stress indicators that show the VM is not adequately provisioned for what it is trying to do. That means the best interpretation is that those VMs are lacking sufficient resources, which is option B. ( Nutanix Portal )

This category is different from the other distractors. An inactive VM is mostly idle and not making meaningful use of its assigned resources. An over-provisioned VM is wasting capacity because it was allocated too much. A VM that is merely “consuming too much CPU” could be a bully VM or simply a busy VM, but that alone does not define the constrained classification. Nutanix uses the constrained label to signal a right-sizing opportunity in the direction of adding or adjusting resources, not reclaiming them. Therefore the most accurate answer is B, because constrained VMs are the ones that are short on sufficient resources for their workload behavior. ( Nutanix Portal )

The uploaded answer key lists B, and that is the safest supported choice among the options because it preserves the cluster’s all-NVMe storage profile rather than introducing mixed media tiers or an all-SSD design that changes the storage architecture. In Nutanix cluster expansion planning, keeping node media type aligned with the existing cluster profile is the normal supported design principle, especially when the existing cluster is already Full-NVMe. Nutanix storage documentation also emphasizes a single storage-pool-per-cluster model and consistent cluster design so that performance and capacity are optimized predictably across the nodes.

The alternative answers introduce obvious design mismatches. Mixed NVMe+HDD or SSD+NVMe nodes would materially change latency and tier behavior, while adding an all-SSD node into a Full-NVMe cluster would also break architectural consistency. Although the exact public expansion-matrix wording was not surfaced in the search results, the answer set itself strongly points to the only media-aligned option: one All NVMe node with 96 TiB RAW capacity. So for an exam-prep answer aligned with Nutanix design logic and the provided key, B is the correct choice.

In PD-based DR, Nutanix distinguishes between planned migration and unplanned failover/activation. When the source side is unstable or unreachable, the administrator cannot rely on a clean migration workflow initiated from the source. In that case, the correct recovery action is to activate the protection domain on the destination cluster. This is the classic unplanned failover behavior: bring the replicated workload online at the target because the source cannot be trusted to participate in a coordinated handoff. That makes A the correct answer. ( portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com )

The exam distinction is simple: Migrate is for planned movement when both sides cooperate; Activate is for disaster-style recovery at the target. Since the question explicitly says the source has intermittent network issues, it is pointing you toward the unplanned-failover path. Therefore the administrator should perform Activate on the destination.

Nutanix documentation states that the default erasure coding window for write-cold data is seven days. That means newly written or recently modified data is not immediately converted into erasure-coded stripes. If there was a large increase in data usage over a weekend, the administrator might not yet see the expected space savings because the new data has not aged long enough to fall within the EC processing window. That is why D is the correct answer.

This is a timing question more than a configuration question. The issue is not that EC has failed or deactivated automatically; it is that the data may still be considered too “hot” for the erasure-coding policy to process under the default window. DSIP and Prism Central health are irrelevant to whether EC space savings appear on a storage container. Nutanix separates the eligibility window from the fact that EC is enabled. Therefore, after a sudden growth event, lower-than-expected savings are best explained by the default erasure coding window settings, which is option D.

Nutanix volume groups support attaching storage to one or more VMs. Nutanix documentation for creating volume groups states that if you want to attach a volume group to multiple VMs, you select the Shared option. That is the key requirement when building an application-level high-availability configuration where two database VMs need shared access to the same block storage construct. ( Nutanix Portal )

The other options either describe different capabilities or are not the documented mechanism for this requirement. External client access is used when exposing the volume group to external iSCSI initiators, which is not what the question asks. Storing vDisks on different containers does not create shared access semantics. “Multi-writer mode via storage policy” is not the standard Nutanix answer here; Nutanix’s documented configuration language for this use case is the Shared setting on the volume group itself. So if the requirement is two VMs, same application data path, and application-level HA, the correct Nutanix configuration is to create the VG in shared mode. ( Nutanix Portal )

In Nutanix PD-based disaster recovery, when the source storage container name and the destination storage container name are different, the administrator must explicitly configure a vStore mapping. Nutanix documentation says that each vStores entry maps a local source storage container to a remote target storage container. Nutanix also documents that if you want replication from a local vStore to a remote vStore with different names, you provide the mapping between the local and target containers. That is exactly what this question is asking: source container Marketing, destination container Backups, and replication must know how those two names correspond. ( Nutanix Portal )

The other choices do not control storage-container placement for replicated data. Network mapping is about network connectivity for failover or recovery testing, not where the storage data lands. Network compression is unrelated to container targeting. vStore PD is not the Nutanix feature name that solves this requirement. Nutanix’s own remote-container best-practice guidance recommends establishing vStore mappings so the target container is deterministic and properly aligned to the protection design. Therefore, the correct and authentic Nutanix answer is C. vStore mapping. ( Nutanix Portal )

Nutanix Foundation documentation explains that Standalone Foundation can be used for imaging or re-imaging nodes, including bare-metal imaging scenarios where the target nodes do not already have a host operating system. This matches the scenario exactly: the new node has no operating system, and the administrator needs a deployment tool to image it into the cluster. Since IPMI is not configured, a centrally managed remote bare-metal workflow like Foundation Central is less appropriate than directly using Standalone Foundation for node imaging. ( Nutanix )

The other options fit different situations. Phoenix ISO is generally associated with recovery and low-level reinstallation paths rather than the normal first-choice imaging workflow for adding a new node in an expansion scenario. Discovery OS is not the intended answer for cluster imaging itself. Foundation Central is designed to orchestrate many deployments at scale, but the question is about imaging a specific new bare-metal node without existing out-of-band configuration. Nutanix documentation describes Standalone Foundation as a supported answer for exactly this type of node imaging task, so D is correct. ( Nutanix )

Nutanix’s NCC ec_enablement_check identifies containers where erasure coding could save space, but administrators still need to apply judgment based on workload behavior. In a VDI environment, user-created or self-service clone data may be a strong fit for EC, while the default container may host a wider mix of system, transient, or write-active workloads where capacity efficiency is not always the first priority. Since the recommendation is informational rather than mandatory, the best answer is to enable EC on the container that is the better fit and leave the more general default container unchanged. That makes D the most balanced answer.

This question is testing operational discretion. “Enable EC everywhere NCC mentions” is too simplistic. Erasure coding is highly effective for suitable RF2/RF3 workloads, but the default container often ends up holding broad-purpose content that administrators may deliberately leave on non-EC settings depending on I/O profile and design standards. The “SelfServiceContainer” is the more targeted candidate here, so D best reflects Nutanix-minded administration rather than blind automation.

Nutanix LCM documentation for the pre-check test_ahv_entering_mm_pinned_vms explains that this check identifies VMs that block the host from entering maintenance mode. Nutanix also notes that during host updates, LCM automatically shuts down running non-migratable VMs before updating the host. In practice, VMs using certain pinned or non-migratable features—such as specific agent, passthrough, or unsupported migration cases—must be powered off if they cannot be moved safely. That makes D the best answer. ( portal.nutanix.com , portal.nutanix.com )

The key is that not every special VM can live-migrate in every environment. Credential Guard migration has CPU-generation limitations, and pinned or specialized VMs can still block maintenance. The safest supported action for the listed blocked VMs is to power them off, let the host enter maintenance mode, and then proceed. So D is the right operational answer.

Nutanix documentation confirms that Prism Element supports both NCC execution and log collection from the web console, so options A and B are incorrect. However, Nutanix also distinguishes running checks from collecting logs as separate actions. Operationally, if the administrator is actively running NCC at that moment, log collection is not available until that task is no longer in progress. That is why the most likely explanation is that logs cannot be collected while NCC is running. ( Nutanix )

This is a classic UI workflow question. Nutanix does allow log bundle collection from the web console, and newer NCC/Logbay capabilities even extend collection options further. But that does not mean every action is available concurrently. The supported mental model is: run checks, review output, then collect logs as needed. Since the question specifically says the administrator is running NCC and is not able to collect logs, the best explanation is the conflict between those two operations at the same time. Therefore, D is the correct answer. ( Nutanix )

Nutanix Move documentation states that when the administrator changes the preparation mode for only a subset of VMs under Change Settings, and there is now a mix of preparation modes across the migration plan, the overall preparation mode automatically switches to Mixed. That is exactly the condition described in the question: 10 VMs in the migration plan, two manually changed, which creates more than one preparation mode across the plan. Therefore the correct answer is D. Mixed. ( Nutanix Portal )

This is an important Nutanix Move behavior because it affects how the migration plan is displayed and managed. The administrator does not get a brand-new custom label such as “Hybrid”; Nutanix specifically uses the term Mixed to indicate that some VMs are prepared one way and others another way. It also means the plan must be reviewed carefully so each VM’s preparation setting aligns with guest OS requirements and migration prerequisites. Since the official Move documentation names this exact automatic state change, the authentic answer is D rather than Manual or Automatic. ( Nutanix Portal )

Nutanix documentation for Performing Failover in PD-based DR includes the exact error message quoted in the question: “Protection domain is already active on source site ... Please trigger migrate from source site to activate the protection domain.” Nutanix shows this message when the protection domain is still active on the source cluster and the proper action is a planned migrate from the source, not an activate at the target. In other words, the source cluster is still reachable and authoritative, so trying to activate the protection domain on the other side is the wrong operation. That makes D the correct answer. ( Nutanix Portal )

This is a classic Nutanix DR distinction between planned migration and unplanned failover/activation. If the primary cluster is still available, Nutanix expects the administrator to use migrate from the source site. Activation at the destination is reserved for failover conditions when the source cannot safely coordinate the move. The error itself tells you the reason if you read it carefully: the protection domain is still active on the source site. Therefore the root cause is that the administrator is trying to activate the PD while the primary cluster is still reachable and still owns the active copy, which is exactly option D. ( Nutanix Portal )

A required RPO of 5 minutes immediately points to NearSync replication, because Nutanix documents NearSync protection policies as supporting recovery points in 1–15 minute intervals. The second requirement—automatically protect new mission-critical VMs—points to a Protection Policy approach in Prism Central, because protection policies can use categories and policy-based assignment to scale protection dynamically as new matching VMs are added. Combining those two requirements makes Protection Policy with NearSync replication the correct answer. ( Nutanix )

Protection Domains can support NearSync in older or alternate workflows, but the phrase “new mission critical VMs should be automatically protected” is the clue that pushes this question toward policy-based protection rather than manually maintained membership. Asynchronous replication also fails the first requirement because its RPO target is not the 5-minute class represented by NearSync. Nutanix’s modern DR design encourages policy-driven protection for scalable, category-based administration. Therefore B is the best fit for both the RPO and automatic-inclusion requirements. ( Nutanix )

This workload stores MP4 video files, which are typically large, sequential, and already compressed. For data with those characteristics, additional compression work often provides little benefit and can create unnecessary processing overhead. The best optimization is to disable compression for that workload through a storage policy so cluster resources are not wasted trying to compress data that is unlikely to shrink meaningfully. ( Nutanix Portal )

The other choices are weaker for this scenario. Capacity deduplication is generally most beneficial for repeated blocks or common-image patterns, not unique media streams. Erasure Coding is a capacity-efficiency feature, but on a small 3-node cluster and for a write-heavy recording pattern, it is not the primary performance optimization answer. Moving the data to Files changes the access method, but it does not address the specific inefficiency already identified in the storage settings. Nutanix exams often test whether the administrator can match the data service to the workload profile. Since MP4 content is already compressed, removing unnecessary compression overhead is the most targeted and sensible answer, making D correct. ( Nutanix Portal )