Solved Bad Question? Workgroup Clusters Svr 2016

---

Hello ITPro, ran into a practice question that goes as follows. I've researched a ton and can't seem to pick out an answer that seems to cover it. What do you guys think?

You have two servers that run Windows Server 2016. The servers are configured as shown in the following table:

Server Name | Workgroup | DNS Suffix
Server1 | Workgroup1 | None
Server2 | Workgroup2 | wrkgrp.local

You need to create a failover cluster that contains both servers.

Which command should you run?

A. wmic ComputerSystem Set Workgroup="Workgroup2" | ----I tested this in the lab and it didn't seem to make any impact on the DNS suffix configuration.

B. New-Cluster -Name Cluster1 -Node Server1,Server2 -AdministrativeAccessPoint DNS | ----This should be the correct command to build the cluster once each node has a DNS suffix configured. Not a complete solution.

C. New-Cluster -Name Cluster1 -Node Server1,Server2 -AdministrativeAccessPoint ActiveDirectoryAndDNS | ----This is the incorrect command for a Workgroup cluster.

D. New-Cluster -Name Cluster1 -Node Server1,Server2 -AdministrativeAccessPoint None | ----I'm not sure when you would use this command, but it doesn't seem to apply to creating Workgroup clusters.

E. netdom computername Server1 /MakePrimary:server1.wrkgrp.local | -------This seemed like a promising way to set the DNS suffix for Server1, but it just errors out in my lab.

Reference material used:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/clustering/2015/08/17/workgroup-and-multi-domain-clusters-in-windows-server-2016/

http://woshub.com/windows-cannot-find-microsoft-software-license-terms/

It seems that the only DNS requirement for Workgroup clusters is that each server has a DNS suffix. From what I can tell they don't even have to be the same DNS suffix. Just as long as they can each resolve each others FQDN.

So it would seem that the first step given the question would be to set a DNS suffix for Server1, but based on the options provided, I am thinking this is a bad question.

Any other input or thoughts would be welcome!

Regards,
Adam Tyler

Adam,

I hope all is well. Great topic, question is actually not a bad one, although, as you have figured out based on your research, it is not as clear and concise as it could be.

Let's start with the correct answer, which is technically "B" based on what you have noted above. Your commentary for each of the 5 answers is correct as well,

As you have surmised, while "B" is the correct answer, it does have a pre-requisite requirement that is not addressed as part of the answer, the DNS SUFFIX. Specifically, you need to ensure that each node to be joined to the cluster has a primary DNS suffix.

As that is not the case based on the specified information in the question setup, and is not asked about, or addressed as a step in the flow of the question, the only logical assumption would be that you would fix that first, and then execute the New-Cluster cmdlet in answer "B".

The cluster network name (also known as the administrative access point) is specified in one of three configurations with the New-Cluster -AdministrativeAccessPoint parameter, as noted below:

-AdministrativeAccessPoint
Specifies the type of administrative access point that the cmdlet creates for the cluster. The acceptable values for this parameter are:

ActiveDirectoryAndDns. The cmdlet creates an administrative access point for the cluster. The administrative access point is registered in DNS and enabled in Active Directory Domain Services.

Dns. The cmdlet creates an administrative access point for the cluster. The administrative access point is registered in DNS but is not enabled in Active Directory Domain Services.

None. The cmdlet does not create an administrative access point for the cluster. Some clustered roles and functionality might not be available for a cluster that does not have an administrative access point. Also, you cannot use Failover Cluster Manager to manage a cluster that does not have an administrative access point.

On balance, as I suggested, not a bad question, but not clear, and well thought out.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Adam

Thanks for your explanation Adam, very nice.

Regards,
Adam Tyler