C_DBADM 無料問題集「SAP Certified - Database Administrator - SAP HANA」

<strong>CHALLENGE 2 &#x2014; Mixed Landscape Administration Boundary</strong> The analytics group asks to use the SAP HANA Cloud database for early reporting because the on-premises database has been stable after the upgrade. The cloud environment is provisioned, but its administration validation record is separate and not complete. What is the best response?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
<strong>CHALLENGE 2 &#x2014; Traceability Workload Monitoring Baseline</strong> The database team can either tune memory-related settings now to improve late-shift traceability reporting or first preserve baseline monitoring evidence and tune only if the evidence supports it. Which option is most defensible?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
A university research center operates SAP HANA in a mixed landscape while preparing administrative standards for both an on-premises database and an SAP HANA Cloud environment. During a readiness review, the administrator notices that the operations checklist treats database availability, administration tooling access, backup review, and migration readiness as one generic &#x201C;SAP HANA ready&#x201D; status. SAP HANA cockpit shows the on-premises system as available, while SAP HANA Cloud Central shows the cloud target as provisioned but not yet used for active workloads.
The constraint is that the administrator must avoid approving a readiness status that hides environment-specific responsibilities. The checklist must support clear operational validation without redesigning the landscape.
Which action best improves the readiness review?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
A regional manufacturing supplier completes an SAP HANA upgrade rehearsal for an on-premises database. The upgrade tool reports completion, and the database starts. During post-upgrade validation, SAP HANA cockpit shows the system as available, but the validation checklist contains one skipped step for confirming that administration tools can operate against the upgraded state. The technical lead wants to close the rehearsal because no startup error occurred.
The constraint is that the administrator must confirm the upgrade result is administratively usable, not only technically started. The rehearsal outcome will determine whether the production upgrade window is approved.
What should the administrator do before accepting the rehearsal?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
A subscription billing company uses SAP HANA for scheduled revenue analysis. Users report that one recurring analysis job finishes later than expected, but interactive checks remain responsive. SAP HANA cockpit shows no database outage, while monitoring history shows that the late job overlaps with a planned administrative task and a short period of increased CPU utilization. The support team suggests changing the job owner because the job still completes successfully.
The constraint is that the administrator must identify whether the delay is caused by workload timing or an execution access problem before making a change. The next scheduled run must remain within the reporting window.
Which response best addresses the delayed execution?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
A regional pharmaceutical distributor completes an SAP HANA installation rehearsal for a new on-premises administration environment. The installer reports completion, and the database can be started. During validation, SAP HANA cockpit shows the system as available, but the operations checklist shows that the database explorer connection was created using a temporary validation name instead of the final administration naming standard. The infrastructure team wants to accept the environment because the connection works.
The constraint is that the administrator must confirm a handover-ready installation, including administration evidence that will remain usable after acceptance. The team must not rely on a temporary validation artifact as the final operational reference.
What should the administrator do before accepting the installation handover?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
A pharmaceutical packaging company is validating a planned software maintenance activity on its on-premises SAP HANA database while keeping dependent analytical work active in SAP HANA Cloud. After the maintenance sequence, the system is available, but one lifecycle validation record still shows the pre-maintenance level.
Basic operational checks succeed, so a junior administrator argues that the discrepancy can be ignored until the next window. The maintenance lead is concerned because future administration steps rely on a fully consistent lifecycle state. The team must resolve the issue now without triggering an unnecessary rollback of the entire maintenance cycle.
What is the best next action?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
<strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Receipt-to-Invoice Continuity During Transition Weekend</strong> The finance team proposes a quicker overlap approach: allow local exception handling during the transition weekend so invoices can be settled faster, even if the route differs slightly by plant. The transition office wants a result that remains supportable after go-live. Which action is best aligned with the scenario?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
A media distribution company recently adjusted a database configuration setting on its on-premises SAP HANA environment to improve background data preparation before replication to SAP HANA Cloud. The next day, overnight processing improved, but administrators notice that morning analyst sessions now experience short response spikes during a narrow usage window. System availability is normal, and memory indicators remain within target range.
A platform engineer recommends increasing CPU allocation because the analyst complaints appear during peak usage. The service owner wants the least disruptive correction that preserves the overnight gain while resolving the new daytime regression.
What is the best first step?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)
A regional telecom support center performs a planned parameter adjustment for SAP HANA administration. After the change, SAP HANA starts normally and the database remains available. However, an administrator reviewing active settings notices that the parameter appears in the persisted configuration record but is not reflected in the active runtime state used by current sessions. Routine application checks still succeed, so the service desk wants to close the activity.
The constraint is that the administrator must prove that the approved configuration is active, not only stored. The environment must remain available, and any follow-up action must target the configuration activation gap rather than unrelated application behavior.
Which action best resolves the configuration validation issue?

解説: (JPNTest メンバーにのみ表示されます)

弊社を連絡する

我々は12時間以内ですべてのお問い合わせを答えます。

オンラインサポート時間:( UTC+9 ) 9:00-24:00
月曜日から土曜日まで

サポート:現在連絡