{"id":24364,"date":"2026-09-29T07:19:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-29T07:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/?p=24364"},"modified":"2026-09-29T07:19:00","modified_gmt":"2026-09-29T07:19:00","slug":"splunk-splk-2002-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part19-q361-380","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/splunk-splk-2002-practice-test-questions-and-exam-dumps-part19-q361-380\/","title":{"rendered":"Splunk SPLK-2002 Practice Test Questions and Exam Dumps Part19 Q361-380"},"content":{"rendered":"

View Full <\/b>Splunk SPLK-2002 Exam Dumps<\/b><\/a> and Practice Test Dumps.<\/b><\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

Question 361<\/b><\/h3>\n

An architect is reviewing a proposed Search Head Cluster maintenance procedure. Which condition should be verified before beginning the operation?<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The cluster is healthy and remaining members have sufficient capacity<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. All historical data has been deleted<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Replication has been permanently disabled<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Dashboard formatting is identical<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

    Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

    Before Search Head Cluster maintenance begins, the architect should verify that the cluster is healthy and that the remaining members can continue handling expected workloads. Member availability, cluster state, application consistency, resource utilization, and current search activity should be reviewed. Maintenance can temporarily reduce available search capacity, so performing it during an already overloaded period may increase performance risk. Deleting historical data or disabling replication does not prepare the search tier for maintenance. Dashboard formatting is also irrelevant. A controlled maintenance procedure should include health checks before, during, and after the operation.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Question 362<\/b><\/h3>\n

    A Splunk deployment receives data from multiple geographic regions. Which architectural factor is most important when deciding where ingestion processing should occur?<\/b><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Dashboard ownership<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Processing requirements, network topology, latency, and data-flow dependencies<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Password expiration<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. Search-result appearance<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Correct Answer: 2<\/b><\/p>\n

      Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

      The location of ingestion processing can significantly affect network traffic, latency, resource utilization, and operational complexity. The architect should consider where parsing or transformation is required, how much data must cross network boundaries, the available bandwidth, latency between components, and dependencies between processing and indexing tiers. Centralizing processing may simplify management but can create network or capacity bottlenecks, while distributed processing can increase operational complexity. Dashboard ownership and password expiration do not influence this decision. Evaluating the complete data path helps determine an architecture that can sustain expected ingestion while avoiding unnecessary network and processing constraints.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Question 363<\/b><\/h3>\n

      A cluster has sufficient replication, but a site outage causes searches to fail because searchable copies are unavailable outside that site. What architectural requirement was not satisfied?<\/b><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Adequate site-level searchability<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. Dashboard redundancy<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. Password synchronization<\/span><\/li>\n
      4. Forwarder naming consistency<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

        Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

        Replication alone does not guarantee that searchable data exists outside a failed site. The architecture must satisfy the required site-level searchability so that sufficient searchable copies are available in surviving failure domains. The architect should review site-aware placement, searchability requirements, bucket distribution, and the capacity of surviving sites. If copies exist but are not searchable where needed, users may still lose access to required data during a site outage. Dashboard redundancy, password synchronization, and forwarder naming do not address this issue. Failure testing can reveal whether the configured placement actually meets the organization’s availability requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Question 364<\/b><\/h3>\n

        A forwarding tier shows growing queues even though CPU utilization remains moderate. Network throughput is near its maximum. Which explanation is most consistent with the evidence?<\/b><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Search-head memory exhaustion<\/span><\/li>\n
        2. Dashboard scheduling<\/span><\/li>\n
        3. Network capacity is constraining forwarding throughput<\/span><\/li>\n
        4. Storage retention is too short<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Correct Answer: 3<\/b><\/p>\n

          Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

          Growing forwarding queues combined with moderate CPU utilization and near-maximum network throughput strongly suggest that network capacity is constraining the forwarding path. The architect should examine interface utilization, available bandwidth, latency, packet loss, downstream connectivity, and traffic from other workloads. CPU may not be the bottleneck because the forwarder can process data faster than it can transmit it. Search-head memory, dashboard scheduling, and retention settings do not directly explain this pattern. Correlating queue growth with network utilization provides useful evidence for determining whether additional bandwidth, traffic separation, or another topology adjustment is required.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Question 365<\/b><\/h3>\n

          An architect is comparing two storage platforms for an indexer tier. Both provide enough capacity, but one shows substantially higher latency under peak workload. What should influence the design decision?<\/b><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Dashboard count<\/span><\/li>\n
          2. Storage performance under representative indexing and search workloads<\/span><\/li>\n
          3. Number of user accounts<\/span><\/li>\n
          4. Password policy complexity<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Correct Answer: 2<\/b><\/p>\n

            Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

            Storage capacity alone is insufficient when evaluating an indexer storage platform. The architect should consider performance under representative indexing and search workloads, including latency, throughput, I\/O behavior, queue depth, and sustained peak utilization. A platform with adequate space but high latency may cause indexing delays or slower searches under load. Testing should reflect realistic event volumes and concurrent workloads rather than relying solely on theoretical specifications. Dashboard count, user account count, and password complexity do not provide meaningful storage-performance evidence. Measured workload behavior should therefore be a significant factor in the architecture decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

            Question 366<\/b><\/h3>\n

            A Search Head Cluster application update changes search behavior unexpectedly. What should the architect examine first?<\/b><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Effective configuration and application deployment state<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. Frozen bucket count<\/span><\/li>\n
            3. Password history<\/span><\/li>\n
            4. Dashboard background settings<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

              Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

              Unexpected search behavior after an application update should first be investigated by examining the effective configuration and application deployment state. The architect should determine which configuration values are active, whether the intended package reached all relevant members, whether configuration precedence affects the result, and whether dependencies or conflicting settings exist. Comparing affected and unaffected members can help identify differences. Frozen bucket counts and password history do not normally control application search behavior. Dashboard background settings are also unrelated. Reviewing the effective configuration rather than only the intended package helps reveal why the deployed environment behaves differently from expectations.<\/span><\/p>\n

              Question 367<\/b><\/h3>\n

              A business unit wants faster searches against a growing historical dataset. Which assessment should occur before adding more search capacity?<\/b><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Determine whether the limitation is search workload, storage performance, or indexer resources<\/span><\/li>\n
              2. Change dashboard colors<\/span><\/li>\n
              3. Reduce password length<\/span><\/li>\n
              4. Rename the historical indexes<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                Adding search-head capacity may not improve performance if the underlying constraint is storage I\/O, indexer resources, or another part of the distributed search path. Before expanding the search tier, the architect should correlate search duration with concurrency, search-head utilization, indexer CPU, storage latency, network performance, and workload characteristics. This identifies where the actual bottleneck occurs. Dashboard colors, password length, and index naming do not resolve search-performance constraints. A measured end-to-end assessment prevents capacity from being added to the wrong architectural layer and helps ensure that any investment addresses the resource actually limiting search performance.<\/span><\/p>\n

                Question 368<\/b><\/h3>\n

                An indexer cluster is approaching storage capacity because retention was extended beyond the original design. Which architectural action should be evaluated?<\/b><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Review storage growth, retention requirements, replication overhead, and additional capacity<\/span><\/li>\n
                2. Disable Search Head Cluster replication<\/span><\/li>\n
                3. Change dashboard formatting<\/span><\/li>\n
                4. Reduce network monitoring<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                  Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                  Extending retention increases the amount of indexed data that must remain available on storage. The architect should reassess actual storage growth, retention duration, replication requirements, projected ingest, and available headroom. If the revised requirements exceed existing capacity, additional storage or indexer capacity may be necessary. The impact of replication should also be included because retained data may require multiple copies. Search-head replication, dashboard formatting, and network monitoring do not address indexer storage consumption. Capacity models should be updated whenever retention requirements change so that infrastructure remains aligned with business requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Question 369<\/b><\/h3>\n

                  A multi-site architecture experiences slower recovery than expected after a peer failure. Which network characteristic should be examined?<\/b><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Inter-site bandwidth and latency<\/span><\/li>\n
                  2. Dashboard refresh interval<\/span><\/li>\n
                  3. Password expiration<\/span><\/li>\n
                  4. Number of saved searches<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                    Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                    Recovery after a peer failure can require substantial data movement, particularly when replicated copies must be restored across sites. Inter-site bandwidth and latency can therefore have a significant effect on recovery duration. The architect should examine actual throughput, link utilization, latency, packet loss, and concurrent ingestion or distributed-search traffic. Limited bandwidth or high latency may extend recovery while also affecting normal workloads. Dashboard refresh intervals, password expiration, and saved-search counts do not directly determine replication recovery speed. Measuring the recovery path under realistic failure conditions helps establish whether additional network capacity or topology changes are required.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    Question 370<\/b><\/h3>\n

                    A deployment uses several heavy forwarders for preprocessing. One begins accumulating queues while the others remain lightly loaded. Which area should be investigated?<\/b><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. Search-head captain status<\/span><\/li>\n
                    2. Forwarding distribution, source assignment, and processing workload<\/span><\/li>\n
                    3. Dashboard appearance<\/span><\/li>\n
                    4. Data retention only<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Correct Answer: 2<\/b><\/p>\n

                      Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                      Uneven queues among heavy forwarders can indicate an imbalance in source assignment, forwarding configuration, processing complexity, or destination availability. The architect should compare source distribution, incoming data rates, CPU and memory utilization, processing throughput, queue behavior, network capacity, and connection settings across the heavy forwarders. One system may be receiving more demanding transformations or a larger data stream than its peers. Search-head captain status and dashboard appearance are unrelated. Retention affects indexed storage rather than the immediate forwarding imbalance. Comparing workload characteristics across the processing tier can reveal the reason for the uneven utilization.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Question 371<\/b><\/h3>\n

                      An architect wants to determine whether an indexer peer is receiving an unusually high ingestion load. Which evidence is most useful?<\/b><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. Compare peer-level ingest rates and workload distribution across the cluster<\/span><\/li>\n
                      2. Review dashboard colors<\/span><\/li>\n
                      3. Count password resets<\/span><\/li>\n
                      4. Examine search-result formatting<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                        Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                        Peer-level ingest-rate comparisons provide direct evidence of whether an indexer is receiving an unusually high workload. The architect should examine ingestion volume, forwarding distribution, connection behavior, indexing throughput, CPU, storage I\/O, and network utilization across peers. Differences may be expected because of source distribution, but persistent imbalance can indicate forwarding configuration or topology issues. Dashboard colors and password resets provide no meaningful information about ingestion distribution. Search-result formatting is similarly irrelevant. Measuring workload across the cluster helps distinguish normal variation from a genuine imbalance that could reduce available capacity.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        Question 372<\/b><\/h3>\n

                        A site has sufficient local resources but poor connectivity to the rest of a distributed Splunk architecture. What should the architect recognize?<\/b><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. Local capacity alone does not guarantee effective distributed operation<\/span><\/li>\n
                        2. Storage capacity becomes irrelevant<\/span><\/li>\n
                        3. Search concurrency no longer matters<\/span><\/li>\n
                        4. Replication is automatically disabled<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                          Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                          A site can have sufficient CPU, memory, and storage while still performing poorly if network connectivity to other components is inadequate. Distributed Splunk architectures depend on reliable communication for ingestion, searches, replication, management, and recovery. The architect should therefore evaluate bandwidth, latency, redundancy, packet loss, and network failure domains in addition to local infrastructure capacity. Local resources do not eliminate network dependencies. Storage and search capacity remain relevant, and replication does not automatically disappear because connectivity is poor. End-to-end architecture assessment is necessary to identify constraints that exist between otherwise adequately sized components.<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Question 373<\/b><\/h3>\n

                          A scheduled search creates a large workload spike every hour. Which design approach can reduce repeated contention?<\/b><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. Stagger execution or optimize the scheduled search workload<\/span><\/li>\n
                          2. Increase replication factor without analysis<\/span><\/li>\n
                          3. Rename indexes<\/span><\/li>\n
                          4. Disable forwarder load balancing<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                            Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                            A predictable hourly workload spike can often be reduced by staggering scheduled searches or optimizing expensive searches. The architect should identify searches that begin simultaneously, review their duration and resource consumption, and determine whether execution times can be distributed across a wider interval. Search optimization may further reduce CPU, memory, storage, and network demand. Increasing replication factor does not directly solve search concurrency and may increase infrastructure workload. Renaming indexes and disabling forwarder load balancing are unrelated. Scheduling analysis is particularly useful when resource saturation consistently occurs at known times.<\/span><\/p>\n

                            Question 374<\/b><\/h3>\n

                            A proposed architecture places several critical Splunk components in the same physical failure domain. What should the architect evaluate?<\/b><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. Whether the shared failure domain could simultaneously affect redundant components<\/span><\/li>\n
                            2. Dashboard refresh settings<\/span><\/li>\n
                            3. Search-result formatting<\/span><\/li>\n
                            4. Password complexity<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                              Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                              Placing supposedly redundant components in the same physical failure domain can undermine resilience because a single event may affect them simultaneously. The architect should evaluate power, network, storage, physical location, virtualization infrastructure, and other shared dependencies. Redundancy is meaningful only when the failure domains are sufficiently independent for the intended availability objective. Dashboard refresh settings and password complexity do not address physical resilience. Search-result formatting is also unrelated. Mapping physical and logical dependencies helps identify whether the proposed topology actually protects against the failure scenarios it is intended to withstand.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Question 375<\/b><\/h3>\n

                              An indexer cluster has increased replication traffic after a new peer was removed. What should be expected during this period?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. Temporary recovery or redistribution activity may consume additional resources<\/span><\/li>\n
                              2. All indexing immediately stops permanently<\/span><\/li>\n
                              3. Search heads automatically lose all applications<\/span><\/li>\n
                              4. Storage requirements become zero<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                                Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                                Removing an indexer peer can cause the remaining cluster to redistribute or replicate data to restore required bucket copies. During this period, additional network, storage I\/O, and compute resources may be consumed. The architect should monitor recovery progress, peer health, bucket placement, and resource utilization until the cluster reaches a stable state. This activity does not mean indexing must permanently stop, nor does it remove search-head applications or storage requirements. Understanding temporary recovery overhead is important when planning maintenance because insufficient headroom can cause prolonged recovery or performance degradation.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                Question 376<\/b><\/h3>\n

                                A Search Head Cluster member is under heavy workload while other members are lightly utilized. Which factor should be checked before adding hardware?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. Workload distribution and search assignment behavior<\/span><\/li>\n
                                2. Data retention only<\/span><\/li>\n
                                3. Password policy<\/span><\/li>\n
                                4. Dashboard color settings<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                                  Before adding hardware, the architect should determine whether the high workload is caused by uneven search distribution or a member-specific condition. Search concurrency, scheduled searches, workload patterns, member health, application configuration, and resource utilization should be compared across the cluster. If workload is uneven, improving distribution may address the issue without immediately expanding infrastructure. If all members are consistently saturated under expected peak demand, additional capacity may then be justified. Retention, password policy, and dashboard colors do not explain uneven search-head utilization. Capacity changes should follow evidence identifying the actual source of the imbalance.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  Question 377<\/b><\/h3>\n

                                  A disaster-recovery design requires the surviving environment to support both user searches and data recovery. Which planning approach is appropriate?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. Size resources only for normal search activity<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  2. Include normal workload plus recovery and redistributed workload<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  3. Ignore storage I\/O<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  4. Model only authentication traffic<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    Correct Answer: 2<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    Disaster recovery can create additional workload beyond normal user searches. Surviving infrastructure may need to process recovery replication, redistributed searches, continued ingestion, and other operational activity simultaneously. The architect should therefore model normal workload together with failure-state recovery and redistribution requirements. CPU, memory, storage I\/O, network bandwidth, and search concurrency should all be considered. Sizing only for normal searches can leave insufficient headroom during an outage. Authentication traffic alone is not representative of recovery demand. A realistic DR capacity model should reflect the combined workload that surviving components are expected to support.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                    Question 378<\/b><\/h3>\n

                                    A data onboarding change produces correct results in testing but different results in production. Which architectural issue should be investigated?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. Differences in deployed configuration or processing path between environments<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    2. Dashboard theme settings<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    3. Password reset frequency<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    4. Search result font selection<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                                      When testing and production produce different indexed results, differences in configuration or processing paths should be investigated. The architect should compare effective parsing and transformation settings, application versions, configuration precedence, source routing, processing locations, and deployment state. An environment can behave differently even when the intended configuration appears identical if a relevant dependency or local setting differs. Dashboard themes, password resets, and result fonts do not normally affect event processing. Comparing effective production and test configurations provides evidence for identifying configuration drift or a processing-path difference that explains the inconsistent results.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                      Question 379<\/b><\/h3>\n

                                      A company wants to validate its architecture against expected future workload growth without waiting for production traffic to increase. What method is appropriate?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. Controlled load testing using representative and projected workloads<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      2. Dashboard customization<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      3. Password policy review<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      4. Index renaming<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        Correct Answer: 1<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                                        Controlled load testing allows an architect to evaluate how the environment behaves under representative and projected workloads before actual production demand reaches those levels. Testing can measure ingestion throughput, search concurrency, CPU, memory, storage I\/O, network utilization, queue behavior, and system response during peak conditions. This evidence can reveal capacity constraints and help validate assumptions in the architecture model. Dashboard customization and password policies do not provide workload evidence. Index renaming has no meaningful relationship to capacity. Controlled testing is particularly valuable when future growth is expected to be substantial or difficult to model from historical data alone.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                        Question 380<\/b><\/h3>\n

                                        A final resilience review identifies that a component failure does not cause data loss, but surviving components become overloaded. Which architectural gap does this reveal?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. Data retention<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        2. Dashboard management<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        3. Failure-state capacity and workload redistribution planning<\/span><\/li>\n
                                        4. Password policy<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          Correct Answer: 3<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          Explanation<\/b><\/p>\n

                                          If data remains protected during a component failure but surviving systems become overloaded, the architecture has addressed data resilience without adequately addressing failure-state capacity. The architect should evaluate how indexing, searching, replication, and recovery workloads are redistributed after failure and whether surviving components have enough resource headroom. CPU, memory, storage, network capacity, and search concurrency should be considered. This finding demonstrates why resilience testing must include performance as well as availability. Retention, dashboard management, and password policies do not address the overload. Failure-state capacity should be incorporated into future architecture and sizing decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                           <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                          View Full Splunk SPLK-2002 Exam Dumps and Practice Test Dumps.   Question 361 An architect is reviewing a proposed Search Head Cluster maintenance procedure. Which condition should be verified before beginning the operation? The cluster is healthy and remaining members have sufficient capacity All historical data has been deleted Replication has been permanently disabled Dashboard […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1648,1647],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24364"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24364"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24364\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24365,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24364\/revisions\/24365"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.examlabs.com\/certification\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}