IBM Cloud Pak for Integration V2021.2 Administration Advanced Practice Exam: Hard Questions 2025

An enterprise is installing IBM Cloud Pak for Integration on Red Hat OpenShift in a restricted (air-gapped) network. Image pulls intermittently fail during operand reconciliation, but the operators appear installed. The security team requires that no cluster nodes access external registries and that all images are served from an internal registry with validated signatures. Which approach best satisfies reliability and security while minimizing future upgrade risk?

A platform team plans a multi-tenant Cloud Pak for Integration environment. They want strict isolation between tenants (separate teams) while sharing the same OpenShift cluster. Requirements: (1) tenants must not see or modify each other’s integration instances; (2) central admins can manage operators; (3) minimize operational overhead; (4) tenants can self-serve creation of capabilities in their own namespaces. Which design best meets these requirements?

After deploying Cloud Pak for Integration, multiple capability custom resources remain in a Pending state. The operator logs show repeated reconciliation retries and "could not create Route" errors. The OpenShift cluster is configured with a custom default IngressController that does not allow wildcard routes, and some namespaces are restricted from creating Routes by policy. What is the best administrative resolution that aligns with OpenShift best practices and keeps reconciliation stable?

A team rotates TLS certificates used by several Cloud Pak for Integration endpoints. Shortly after rotation, API calls to a capability start failing from other namespaces with TLS handshake errors, but in-namespace calls succeed. The certificates were updated in Kubernetes Secrets, and pods were restarted. What is the most likely missing step to restore cross-namespace trust in a controlled way?

A Cloud Pak for Integration operator upgrade is planned. The admin wants to minimize downtime for running integration runtimes while ensuring CRDs and webhooks remain compatible. During a previous upgrade, some operands stopped reconciling due to CRD/schema mismatches. Which upgrade strategy best reduces this risk?

A tenant reports that creating new integration instances fails with "exceeded quota" errors, even though the namespace has CPU/memory quota available. The events show failures creating PersistentVolumeClaims. Storage is provided by a dynamic storage class, and other namespaces can provision volumes. What is the most probable root cause and best fix?

Operators are healthy, but an integration runtime enters a crash loop only under load. The pod is OOMKilled despite namespace limits seemingly adequate. The runtime uses Java and has custom JVM options. Metrics show the container memory usage spikes beyond the limit during GC. What is the best corrective action that balances stability and resource efficiency?

A new capability instance fails to become Ready. The operator status shows "dependency not found" and events indicate that a required webhook call is timing out. Network policies were recently tightened. Other namespaces still work. Which troubleshooting approach is most effective to identify and fix the issue with minimal blast radius?

A production cluster shows intermittent latency spikes for integrations, coinciding with node pressure alerts. The admin observes high ephemeral storage usage and frequent container restarts with "no space left on device" on certain nodes. Persistent volumes are healthy. What is the most appropriate remediation plan for Cloud Pak for Integration workloads?

A company runs multiple integration capabilities and needs to standardize secret management and credential rotation across them. They want to avoid embedding credentials in CR specs and ensure rotations propagate with minimal downtime. Which administrative pattern best meets these goals in Cloud Pak for Integration on OpenShift?