A pool has two members with equal capacity, but one member receives significantly more traffic than the other. The load balancing method is set to 'Ratio'. What is a possible misconfiguration?

The ratio weights are not set equally.

The pool members have different priority groups.

The load balancing method is set to 'Round Robin'.

The pool has a persistence profile that is overriding the load balancing method.

A web application pool has two members. The BIG-IP marks both members down, although the application is reachable from the BIG-IP using curl. The monitor is an HTTP monitor with a send string of 'GET /health' and a receive string of 'HTTP/1.1 200'. The application returns a 301 redirect to '/login' for '/health'. What is the most likely cause of the false down status?

The monitor's timeout is set too low, causing the BIG-IP to give up before the server responds.

The monitor's receive string does not match the actual response, causing the monitor to fail.

The monitor is not associated with the pool, so the BIG-IP defaults to marking members down.

The monitor's interval is set too high, so the BIG-IP does not check often enough.

A virtual server is configured with destination 10.1.1.100:443 and a default pool. Clients on the internal network can reach the virtual server, but traffic is not load balanced; all connections go to the first pool member. The pool members are healthy. What is the most likely cause?

A persistence profile is attached to the virtual server, causing all connections from the same client to go to the same member.

The default pool is misconfigured with the wrong member IP addresses.

The pool's load balancing method is set to 'Round Robin', which sends all connections to the first member.

The virtual server's destination port is set to 80 instead of 443.

A pool member is marked down, but the application is healthy. The pool has an HTTP monitor associated with it, but the application is actually an HTTPS service. What is the most likely cause?

The monitor type is incorrect for the application.

The monitor is not associated with the pool member.

The monitor interval is too long.

The monitor receive string is incorrect.

F5Certified Administrator, BIG-IP

Domain 3Objective 2

Identify Misconfigurations (incorrect Health Checks, Action on Service Down, Etc.) F5CAB5 Practice Questions (Page 3)

Part of the Identify the reason load balancing is not working as expected domain, which makes up ~12% of our current practice bank. F5 does not publish an official question count, but from its 30-minute exam (~10–20 total, ~1–2 in this domain), expect 1–1 from this objective — we provide 19 practice questions to prepare you well beyond it. (estimate)

19questions here

4free pages

8concepts

8 Concepts in This Objective

Health check misconfigurations
Action on service down misconfigurations
Pool member and pool misconfigurations
Virtual server misconfigurations
Monitor association and status
Load balancing method misconfigurations
Persistence and fallback misconfigurations
SNAT and routing misconfigurations

Questions 11–15

11foundation · easy
A pool has two members with equal capacity, but one member receives significantly more traffic than the other. The load balancing method is set to 'Ratio'. What is a possible misconfiguration?
Select an answer first
12application · medium
A web application pool has two members. The BIG-IP marks both members down, although the application is reachable from the BIG-IP using curl. The monitor is an HTTP monitor with a send string of 'GET /health' and a receive string of 'HTTP/1.1 200'. The application returns a 301 redirect to '/login' for '/health'. What is the most likely cause of the false down status?
Select an answer first
13application · medium
A virtual server is configured with destination 10.1.1.100:443 and a default pool. Clients on the internal network can reach the virtual server, but traffic is not load balanced; all connections go to the first pool member. The pool members are healthy. What is the most likely cause?
Select an answer first
14foundation · easy
A pool member is marked down, but the application is healthy. The pool has an HTTP monitor associated with it, but the application is actually an HTTPS service. What is the most likely cause?
Select an answer first
15foundation · easy
A pool has two members with priority groups: Member A is in priority group 1, and Member B is in priority group 2. Both members are healthy. Which member will receive traffic?
Select an answer first

Finished these 5 questions?

Review the revealed explanations, or continue through the curriculum.

Next 5 questions →Back to F5CAB5

Free Basic Practice is a study aid with revealable answers — not a scored exam. Examers.io is independent and not affiliated with or endorsed by F5. “F5CAB5” is a trademark of its owner, used for identification only.

Identify Misconfigurations (incorrect Health Checks, Action on Service Down, Etc.) F5CAB5 Practice Questions (Page 3)

Questions 11–15

A pool has two members with equal capacity, but one member receives significantly more traffic than the other. The load balancing method is set to 'Ratio'. What is a possible misconfiguration?

A virtual server is configured with destination 10.1.1.100:443 and a default pool. Clients on the internal network can reach the virtual server, but traffic is not load balanced; all connections go to the first pool member. The pool members are healthy. What is the most likely cause?

A pool member is marked down, but the application is healthy. The pool has an HTTP monitor associated with it, but the application is actually an HTTPS service. What is the most likely cause?

A pool has two members with priority groups: Member A is in priority group 1, and Member B is in priority group 2. Both members are healthy. Which member will receive traffic?

Keep studying — Identify the reason load balancing is not working as expected