Free Practice Questions for VMware 2V0-13.24 Exam

VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) offers two primary architectural models:Standard Architecture(separate Management and Workload Domains) andConsolidated Architecture(combined management and workloads in a single domain). The requirement to minimize management tool instances suggests centralizing management where possible, while the diverse network infrastructure (40Gb, 10Gb, 100Mb) and workload performance needs influence the design. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: Headquarters will have a private cloud based on the VCF Consolidated ArchitectureThe Consolidated Architecture combines management and workload components in one domain, suitable for smaller deployments with limited resources. However, headquarters has a brand-new datacenter with 40Gb networking, indicating a high-capacity environment likely intended as the central hub. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guiderecommends the Standard Architecture for larger, scalable deployments with robust infrastructure, as it separates management for better isolation and scalability, conflicting with Consolidated Architecture here.

Option B: Larger stores will have a private cloud based on the VCF Consolidated ArchitectureLarger stores have 10Gb infrastructure and secure machine rooms, suggesting moderate capacity. While Consolidated Architecture could work, it requires a full VCF stack (SDDC Manager, vCenter, NSX) per site, increasing management instances. This contradicts the requirement to minimize management tools, as each store would need its own management stack.

Option C: Smaller stores will have remote clusters deployed from the HQ VCF instanceSmaller stores with 100Mb infrastructure are resource-constrained. Deploying remote clusters (e.g., stretched or additional clusters) managed by the HQ VCF instance leverages centralized SDDC Manager and vCenter, minimizing management tools. TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guidesupports remote cluster deployment from a central VCF instance, ensuring performance via local workload placement while reducing administrative overhead—ideal for the pilot phase.

Option D: Smaller stores will have remote clusters deployed from the geographically closest Larger store VCF instanceThis assumes larger stores host their own VCF instances, which increases management complexity (multiple SDDC Managers). The requirement to minimize management tools favors a single HQ-managed instance over distributed management from larger stores, making this less optimal.

Option E: Headquarters will have a private cloud based on the VCF Standard ArchitectureThe Standard Architecture deploys a dedicated Management Domain at HQ (with 40Gb infrastructure) and allows workload domains or remote clusters to be managed centrally. This aligns with minimizing management instances (one SDDC Manager, one vCenter) while supporting high-performance workloads across all locations, per theVCF 5.2 Architectural Guide. It’s the best fit for HQ’s role as the central hub.

Option F: Larger stores will have workload domains deployed from the HQ VCF instanceDeploying workload domains for larger stores from HQ’s VCF instance uses the Standard Architecture’s flexibility to manage multiple domains centrally. With 10Gb infrastructure, larger stores can host workloads efficiently under HQ’s SDDC Manager, avoiding separate VCF instances and meeting the management minimization requirement without compromising performance.

Conclusion:

E: Standard Architecture at HQ provides a scalable, centralized management foundation.

F: Workload domains for larger stores from HQ reduce management overhead.

C: Remote clusters for smaller stores from HQ support the pilot with minimal tools.This trio balances centralized management with performance across varied infrastructure.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Section on Standard vs. Consolidated Architecture.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): Remote Cluster and Workload Domain Deployment.

When sizing a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) VI Workload Domain, calculating usable compute capacity involves determining the resources available for workloads after accounting for overheads and system-level requirements. In VCF 5.2, a VI Workload Domain integrates vSphere, vSAN, and NSX, and certain factors directly impact the compute capacity available to virtual machines. Based on the official VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 documentation, the three key factors to consider are vSphere HA, vSAN, and NIOC.

In VMware vSphere, ensuring consistent performance for a mission-critical virtual machine (VM) in a resource-constrained environment requires guaranteeing that the VM receives the necessary CPU and memory resources, even when the cluster is under contention. The scenario specifies that the VM operates in a four-host vSphere cluster with no additional capacity available, meaning options that require adding resources (like D) or creating a new cluster (like C) are not feasible without additional hardware, which isn’t an option here.

Option A: Use CPU and memory reservationsReservations in vSphere guarantee a minimum amount of CPU and memory resources for a VM, ensuring that these resources are always available, even during contention. For a mission-critical application, this is the most effective way to ensure consistent performance because it prevents other VMs from consuming resources allocated to this VM. According to theVMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide, reservations are recommended for workloads requiring predictable performance, especially in environments where resource contention is a risk (e.g., 90% utilization scenarios). This aligns with VMware’s best practices for mission-critical workloads.

Option B: Use CPU and memory limitsLimits cap the maximum CPU and memory a VM can use, which could starve the mission-critical VM of resources when it needs to scale up to meet demand. This would degrade performance rather than ensure consistency, making it an unsuitable choice. ThevSphere Resource Management Guide(part of VMware’s documentation suite) advises against using limits for performance-critical VMs unless the goal is to restrict resource usage, not guarantee it.

Option C: Create a new vSphere Cluster and migrate the mission-critical virtual machine to itCreating a new cluster implies additional hardware or reallocation of existing hosts, but the question states there is no additional capacity. Without available resources, this option is impractical in the given scenario.

Option D: Add additional ESXi hosts to the current clusterWhile adding hosts would increase capacity and potentially reduce contention, the lack of additional capacity rules this out as a viable recommendation without violating the scenario constraints.

Thus,Ais the best recommendation as it leverages vSphere’s resource management capabilities to ensure consistent performance without requiring additional hardware.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Section on Resource Management for Workload Domains.

vSphere Resource Management Guide(docs.vmware.com): Chapter on Configuring Reservations, Limits, and Shares.

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, design documentation includes assumptions, constraints, requirements, and risks to define the solution’s scope and address potential challenges. The scenario provides specific information about workload types and their behavior over time, which the architect must categorize appropriately. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: An assumption that the DB workload resource requirements will remain staticThis is the correct answer. Anassumptionis a statement taken as true without proof, often based on customer-provided information, to guide design planning. The customer explicitly states that “the DBworkloads will stay the same in terms of resources over time.” Documenting this as an assumption reflects this fact and allows the architect to size the VCF instance with a fixed resource allocation for DB workloads, while planning scalability for other workloads. This aligns with VMware’s design methodology for capturing stable baseline conditions.

Option B: A constraint of including the management, DB, and VDI environmentsThis is incorrect. Aconstraintis a limitation or restriction imposed on the design, such as existing hardware or policies. The need to support management, VDI, DB, and general workloads is arequirement(what the solution must do), not a limitation. Labeling it a constraint misrepresents its role—it’s a design goal, not a restrictive factor. Constraints might include budget or rack space, but this scenario doesn’t indicate such limits.

Option C: A requirement consisting of the growth of the general workloads and VDI environmentThis is a strong contender but incorrect in this context. Arequirementdefines what the solution must achieve, and the customer’s statement that “general workloads and VDI environments are expected to grow over the next 3 years” could be a requirement (e.g., “The solution must support growth…”). However, the question asks for a single item, and Option A better captures a foundational planning element (static DB workloads) that directly informs sizing. Growth could be a requirement, but it’s less immediate than the assumption about DB stability for initial design documentation.

Option D: A risk that the VCF instance may not have enough capacity for growthThis is incorrect as the primary answer. Ariskidentifies potential issues that could impact success, such as insufficient capacity for growing workloads. While this is a valid concern given VDI and general workload growth, the scenario doesn’t provide evidence of immediate capacity limitations—only an expectation of growth. Risks are typically documented after sizing, not as the sole initial inclusion. The assumption about DB workloads is more fundamental to start the design process.

Conclusion:The architect should includean assumption that the DB workload resource requirements will remain static(Option A). This reflects the customer’s explicit statement, establishes a baseline for sizing the Management Domain and Workload Domains, and allows planning for growth elsewhere. While growth (C) and risk (D) are relevant, the assumption is the most immediate and appropriate single item for initial documentation in VCF 5.2.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Assumptions and Requirements)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Workload Domain Sizing)

In VCF, the logical design documents how design decisions align with requirements, often through justifications, assumptions, or implications. Here, adding a new cluster within the management domain for dedicated management tooling workloads requires a rationale in the logical design. Option A, a justification that the separate cluster enhances "flexibility for manageability and connectivity," aligns with VCF’s principles of workload segregation and operational efficiency. It explains why the decisionwas made—improving management tooling’s flexibility—without assuming unstated outcomes (like B’s "complete isolation," which isn’t supported by the scenario) or merely stating effects (C and D). The management domain in VCF 5.2 can host additional clusters for such purposes, and this justification ties directly to the requirement for dedicated capacity.

In VCF 5.2, the logical design focuses on high-level architectural decisions that define the system’s structure and behavior, as opposed to physical or operational details. Networking decisions in the logical design emphasize scalability, security policies, and connectivity frameworks, per theVCF 5.2 Architectural Guide. Let’s evaluate each:

Option A: Use of 2x 64-port Cisco Nexus 9300 for top-of-rack ESXi host switchesThis specifies physical hardware, a detail typically documented in the physical design (e.g., BOM, rack layout). TheVCF 5.2 Design Guidedistinguishes hardware choices as physical, not logical, unless they dictate architecture (e.g., spine-leaf), which isn’t implied here.

Option B: NSX Distributed Firewall (DFW) rule to block all traffic by defaultThis is a security policy configuration within NSX, defining how traffic is controlled. While critical, it’s an operational or detailed design decision (e.g., rule set), not a high-level logical design element. TheVCF 5.2 Networking Guideplaces DFW rules in implementation details, not the logical overview.

Option C: Implement overlay network technology to scale across data centersOverlay networking (e.g., NSX VXLAN or Geneve) is a foundational architectural decision in VCF, enabling scalability, multi-site connectivity, and logical separation of networks. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidehighlights overlays as a core logical design component, directly impacting how the solution scales across data centers, making it a prime candidate for the logical design.

Option D: Configure Cisco Discovery Protocol (CDP) - Listen mode on all Distributed Virtual Switches (DVS)CDP in Listen mode aids network discovery and troubleshooting on DVS. This is a configuration setting, not a logical design decision. TheVCF 5.2 Networking Guidetreats such protocol settings as operational details, not architectural choices.

Conclusion:Option C belongs in the logical design, as it defines a scalable networking architecture critical to VCF 5.2’s multi-data center capabilities.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Logical Design and Overlay Networking.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Networking Guide(docs.vmware.com): NSX and DVS Configuration.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Design Guide(docs.vmware.com): Logical vs. Physical Design.

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, Cloud Automation (e.g., Aria Automation) and Operations (e.g., Aria Operations) products rely on identity management for authentication. The customer’s requirements—corporate directory authentication, Active/Standby across two sites, disaster recovery (DR), network zoning, slow firewall processes, and a 3-month deployment timeline—shape the design decisions. The architect must ensure authentication works efficiently across sites while meeting the timeline and DR needs. Let’s evaluate:

Key Constraints and Context:

Authentication: All users/administrators use the corporate directory (e.g., Active Directory in the corporate zone).

Deployment: Active/Standby across two sites, with management apps in a separate tooling zone behind firewalls.

DR: Management apps must recover to the standby site.

Firewall Delays: 8-week minimum per rule, but deployment must occur within 12 weeks (3 months).

Identity Broker: In VCF, VMware Workspace ONE Access (or similar) acts as an identity broker, bridging VCF components with external directories (e.g., AD via LDAP/S).

Evaluation of Options:

Option A: The Cloud Automation and Operations products will be reconfigured to integrate with the Identity Broker solution instance at the standby site in case of a Disaster Recovery incident

This implies a single Identity Broker at the primary site, with reconfiguration to a standby instance post-DR. Reconfiguring products (e.g., updating SSO endpoints) during DR adds complexity and downtime, contradicting the Active/Standby goal of seamless failover. It’s feasible but not optimal given the need for continuous operation and the 3-month timeline.

Option B: The Identity Broker solution will be deployed at both the primary and standby site

This is correct. Deploying Workspace ONE Access (or equivalent) at both sites supports Active/Standby by ensuring authentication availability at the primary site and immediate usability at the standby site post-DR. It aligns with VCF’s multi-site HA capabilities and avoids reconfiguration delays, addressing the DR requirement efficiently within the timeline.

Option C: The Identity Broker solution will be connected with the corporate directory service for user authentication

This is correct. The requirement states all users/administrators authenticate via the corporate directory (in the corporate zone). An Identity Broker (e.g., Workspace ONE Access) connects to AD via LDAP/S, acting as a proxy between the management tooling zone and corporate zone. This satisfies the authentication need and simplifies firewall rules (one broker-to-AD connection vs. multiple app connections), critical given the 8-week delay.

Option D: The Identity Broker solution will be deployed at the primary site and failed over to the standby site in case of a disaster

This suggests a single Identity Broker with DR failover. While possible (e.g., via vSphere Replication), it risks authentication downtime during failover, conflicting with Active/Standby continuity. The 8-week firewall rule delay for the standby site’s broker connection post-DR also jeopardizes the 3-month timeline and DR readiness, making this less viable than dual-site deployment (B).

Option E: The Cloud Automation and Operations products will be integrated with a single instance of an Identity Broker solution at the primary site

This is correct. Integrating Aria products with one Identity Broker instance at the primary site during initial deployment simplifies setup and meets the 3-month timeline. It leverages the broker deployed at the primary site (part of B) for authentication, minimizing firewall rules (one broker vs. multiple apps). Pairing this with a standby instance (B) ensures DR readiness without immediate complexity.

Option F: The Cloud Automation and Operations products will be integrated directly with the corporate directory service

This is incorrect. Direct integration requires each product (e.g., Aria Automation, Operations) to connect to AD across the firewall, necessitating multiple rule requests. With an 8-week minimum per rule and several products, this exceeds the 3-month timeline. It also complicates DR, as each app would need re-pointing to a standby AD, violating efficiency and zoning policies.

Conclusion:

The three design decisions are:

B: Identity Broker at both sites ensures Active/Standby and DR readiness.

C: Connecting the broker to the corporate directory fulfills the authentication requirement and simplifies firewall rules.

E: Integrating products with a primary-site broker meets the 3-month deployment goal while leveraging B and C for DR.This trio balances timeline, security, and DR needs in VCF 5.2.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Identity and Access Management)

VMware Aria Automation 8.10 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): Authentication Design

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Multi-Site and DR Considerations)