A Nutanix administrator must protect a Prism Central-managed cluster against loss of the entire production site while preserving 30 days of application-consistent restore points. Local snapshots already exist on the cluster. Which action best satisfies the site-disaster and retention goal?

Protection against loss of an entire site requires the retained restore points to live outside that site, so copies must go to a target in a different physical location, such as a remote backup repository or an external backup platform at another facility. Thirty days of application-consistent restore points also calls for backup retention, which a backup product integrated with Nutanix snapshots and NGT-driven quiescing handles well. Replicating with NearSync to a second cluster in the same datacenter keeps the copies inside the same failure domain, so a site-wide disaster takes out both clusters at once; NearSync is also aimed at RPOs of minutes rather than long retention. Container-level snapshots with RF2 on the local cluster protect against disk or node loss and accidental changes, but they stay on the production cluster and burn with the site. Adding a second CVM per node is not a Nutanix design option at all; each node runs exactly one CVM, and CVMs affect the data path rather than where backups live. Exam caveat: separate availability (RF, replication within a site) from disaster recovery and retention (copies at another site), and check that the target is physically separate. Operational check: confirm the backup target is reachable from the cluster but located at a different site, and run a restore test that pulls a 30-day-old copy from that remote target.