Questions for the 2V0-13-24 were updated on : Dec 01 ,2025
An architect was requested to recommend a solution for migrating 5000 VMs from an existing
vSphere environment to a new VMware Cloud Foundation infrastructure. Which feature or tool can
be recommended by the architect to minimize downtime and automate the process?
A
Explanation:
When migrating 5000 virtual machines (VMs) from an existing vSphere environment to a new
VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 infrastructure, the primary goals are to minimize downtime and
automate the process as much as possible. VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 is a full-stack hyper-
converged infrastructure (HCI) solution that integrates vSphere, vSAN, NSX, and Aria Suite for a
unified private cloud experience. Given the scale of the migration (5000 VMs) and the requirement
to transition from an existing vSphere environment to a new VCF infrastructure, the architect must
select a tool that supports large-scale migrations, minimizes downtime, and provides automation
capabilities across potentially different environments or data centers.
Let’s evaluate each option in detail:
A . VMware HCX:
VMware HCX (Hybrid Cloud Extension) is an application mobility platform designed specifically for
large-scale workload migrations between vSphere environments, including migrations to VMware
Cloud Foundation. HCX is included in VCF Enterprise Edition and provides advanced features such as
zero-downtime live migration, bulk migration, and network extension. It automates the creation of
hybrid interconnects between source and destination environments, enabling seamless VM mobility
without requiring IP address changes (via Layer 2 network extension). HCX supports migrations from
older vSphere versions (as early as vSphere 5.1) to the latest versions included in VCF 5.2, making it
ideal for brownfield-to-greenfield transitions. For a migration of 5000 VMs, HCX’s ability to perform
bulk migrations (hundreds of VMs simultaneously) and its high-availability features (e.g., redundant
appliances) ensure minimal disruption and efficient automation. HCX also integrates with VCF’s
SDDC Manager, aligning with the centralized management paradigm of VCF 5.2.
B . vSphere vMotion:
vSphere vMotion enables live migration of running VMs from one ESXi host to another within the
same vCenter Server instance with zero downtime. While this is an excellent tool for migrations
within a single data center or vCenter environment, it is limited to hosts managed by the same
vCenter Server. Migrating VMs to a new VCF infrastructure typically involves a separate vCenter
instance (e.g., a new management domain in VCF), which vMotion alone cannot handle. For 5000
VMs, vMotion would require manual intervention for each VM and would not scale efficiently across
different environments or data centers, making it unsuitable as the primary tool for this scenario.
C . VMware Converter:
VMware Converter is a tool designed to convert physical machines or other virtual formats (e.g.,
Hyper-V) into VMware VMs. It is primarily used for physical-to-virtual (P2V) or virtual-to-virtual (V2V)
conversions rather than migrating existing VMware VMs between vSphere environments. Converter
involves downtime, as it requires powering off the source VM, cloning it, and then powering it on in
the destination environment. For 5000 VMs, this process would be extremely time-consuming, lack
automation for large-scale migrations, and fail to meet the requirement of minimizing downtime,
rendering it an impractical choice.
D . Cross vCenter vMotion:
Cross vCenter vMotion extends vMotion’s capabilities to migrate VMs between different vCenter
Server instances, even across data centers, with zero downtime. While this feature is powerful and
could theoretically be used to move VMs to a new VCF environment, it requires both environments
to be linked within the same Enhanced Linked Mode configuration and assumes compatible vSphere
versions. For 5000 VMs, Cross vCenter vMotion lacks the bulk migration and automation capabilities
offered by HCX, requiring significant manual effort to orchestrate the migration. Additionally, it does
not provide network extension or the same level of integration with VCF’s architecture as HCX.
Why VMware HCX is the Best Choice:
VMware HCX stands out as the recommended solution for this scenario due to its ability to handle
large-scale migrations (up to hundreds of VMs concurrently), minimize downtime via live migration,
and automate the process through features like network extension and migration scheduling. HCX is
explicitly highlighted in VCF 5.2 documentation as a key tool for workload migration, especially for
importing existing vSphere environments into VCF (e.g., via the VCF Import Tool, which complements
HCX). Its support for both live and scheduled migrations ensures flexibility, while its integration with
VCF 5.2’s SDDC Manager streamlines management. For a migration of 5000 VMs, HCX’s scalability,
automation, and minimal downtime capabilities make it the superior choice over the other options.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Release Notes (techdocs.broadcom.com)
VMware Cloud Foundation Deployment Guide (docs.vmware.com)
"Enabling Workload Migrations with VMware Cloud Foundation and VMware HCX"
(blogs.vmware.com, May 3, 2022)
As part of a new VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) deployment, a customer is planning to implement
the vSphere IaaS control plane. What component could be installed and enabled to implement the
solution?
B
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, the vSphere IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) control plane
extends vSphere to provide cloud-like provisioning and automation, typically through integration
with higher-level tools. The question asks which component enables this capability. Let’s evaluate:
Option A: Storage DRS
Storage DRS (Distributed Resource Scheduler) automates storage management (e.g., load balancing)
within vSphere. It’s a vSAN/vSphere feature, not an IaaS control plane, as it lacks broad provisioning
or orchestration capabilities. This is incorrect.
Option B: Aria Automation
This is correct. VMware Aria Automation (formerly vRealize Automation) integrates with VCF via
SDDC Manager to provide an IaaS control plane on vSphere. It enables self-service provisioning of
VMs, applications, and infrastructure (e.g., via blueprints), extending vSphere into a cloud model. In
VCF 5.2, Aria Automation’s vSphere IaaS control plane feature (introduced in vSphere 7.0+) allows
direct management of vSphere resources as an IaaS platform, making it the key component for this
solution.
Option C: Aria Operations
Aria Operations (formerly vRealize Operations) provides monitoring and analytics for VCF. It tracks
performance and health, not provisioning or IaaS control. While valuable, it doesn’t implement an
IaaS control plane, so this is incorrect.
Option D: NSX Edge networking
NSX Edge provides advanced networking (e.g., load balancing, gateways) in VCF. It supports IaaS by
enabling network services but isn’t the control plane itself—control planes orchestrate resources,
not just network them. This is incorrect.
Conclusion:
The component to install and enable for the vSphere IaaS control plane is Aria Automation (B). It
transforms vSphere into an IaaS platform within VCF 5.2, meeting the customer’s deployment goal.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Aria Automation
Integration)
VMware Aria Automation 8.10 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): vSphere IaaS Control Plane
VMware vSphere 7.0U3 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): IaaS Features
A company plans to expand its existing VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) environment for a new
application. The current VCF environment includes a Management Domain and two separate VI
Workload Domains with different hardware profiles. The new application has the following
requirements:
The application will use significantly more memory than current workloads.
The application will have a limited number of licenses to run on hosts.
Additional VCF and hardware costs have been approved for the application.
The application will contain confidential customer information that requires isolation from other
workloads.
What design recommendation should the architect document?
A
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, expanding an existing environment for a new application
involves balancing resource needs, licensing, cost, and security. The requirements—high memory,
limited licenses, approved budget, and isolation—guide the design. Let’s evaluate:
Option A: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements
of the new application
This is correct. A new VI Workload Domain (minimum 3-4 hosts, depending on vSAN HA) can be
tailored to the application’s high memory needs with new hardware. Isolation is achieved by
dedicating the domain to the application, separating it from existing workloads (e.g., via NSX
segmentation). Limited licenses can be managed by sizing the domain to match the license count
(e.g., 4 hosts if licensed for 4), and the approved budget supports this. This aligns with VCF’s
Standard architecture for workload separation and scalability.
Option B: Deploy a new consolidated VCF instance and deploy the new application into it
This is incorrect. A consolidated VCF instance runs management and workloads on a single cluster (4-
8 hosts), mixing the new application with management components. This violates the isolation
requirement for confidential data, as management and application workloads share infrastructure. It
also overcomplicates licensing and memory allocation, and a new instance exceeds the intent of
“expanding” the existing environment.
Option C: Purchase sufficient matching hardware to meet the new application’s memory
requirements and expand an existing cluster to accommodate the new application. Use host affinity
rules to manage the new licensing
This is incorrect. Expanding an existing VI Workload Domain cluster with matching hardware (to
maintain vSAN compatibility) could meet memory needs, and DRS affinity rules could pin the
application to licensed hosts. However, mixing the new application with existing workloads in the
same domain compromises isolation for confidential data. NSX segmentation helps, but a shared
cluster increases risk, making this less secure than a dedicated domain.
Option D: Order enough identical hardware for the Management Domain to meet the new
application requirements and design a new Workload Domain for the application
This is incorrect. Upgrading the Management Domain (minimum 4 hosts) with high-memory
hardware for the application is illogical—management domains host SDDC Manager, vCenter, etc.,
not user workloads. A new Workload Domain is feasible, but tying it to Management Domain
hardware mismatches the VCF architecture (Management and VI domains have distinct roles). This
misinterprets the requirement and wastes resources.
Conclusion:
The architect should recommend A: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting
the memory requirements of the new application. This meets all requirements—memory, licensing
(via domain sizing), budget (approved costs), and isolation (dedicated domain)—within VCF 5.2’s
Standard architecture.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Workload Domain
Design)
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Isolation and Sizing)
An administrator is documenting the design for a new VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) solution.
During discovery workshops with the customer, the following information was shared with the
architect:
All users and administrators of the solution will need to be authenticated using accounts in the
corporate directory service.
The solution will need to be deployed across two geographically separate locations and run in an
Active/Standby configuration where supported.
The management applications deployed as part of the solution will need to be recovered to the
standby location in the event of a disaster.
All management applications will need to be deployed into a management tooling zone of the
network, which is separated from the corporate network zone by multiple firewalls.
The corporate directory service is deployed in the corporate zone.
There is an internal organization policy that requires each application instance (management or end
user) to detail the ports that access is required on through the firewall separately.
Firewall rule requests are processed manually one application instance at a time and typically take a
minimum of 8 weeks to complete.
The customer also informed the architect that the new solution needs to be deployed and ready to
start the organization’s acceptance into service process within 3 months, as it is a dependency in the
deployment of a business-critical application. When considering the design for the Cloud
Automation and Operations products within the VCF solution, which three design decisions should
the architect include based on this information? (Choose three.)
B, C, E
Explanation:
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.
Reference:
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)
The following storage design decisions were made:
DD01: A storage policy that supports failure of a single fault domain being the server rack.
DD02: Each host will have two vSAN OSA disk groups, each with four 4TB Samsung SSD capacity
drives.
DD03: Each host will have two vSAN OSA disk groups, each with a single 300GB Intel NVMe cache
drive.
DD04: Disk drives capable of encryption at rest.
DD05: Dual 10Gb or higher storage network adapters.
Which two design decisions would an architect include in the physical design? (Choose two.)
B, C
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, the physical design specifies tangible hardware and
infrastructure choices, while logical design includes policies and configurations. The question focuses
on vSAN Original Storage Architecture (OSA) in a VCF environment. Let’s classify each decision:
Option A: DD01 - A storage policy that supports failure of a single fault domain being the server rack
This is a logical design decision. Storage policies (e.g., vSAN FTT=1 with rack awareness) define data
placement and fault tolerance, configured in software, not hardware. It’s not part of the physical
design.
Option B: DD02 - Each host will have two vSAN OSA disk groups, each with four 4TB Samsung SSD
capacity drives
This is correct. This specifies physical hardware—two disk groups per host with four 4TB SSDs each
(capacity tier). In vSAN OSA, capacity drives are physical components, making this a physical design
decision for VCF hosts.
Option C: DD03 - Each host will have two vSAN OSA disk groups, each with a single 300GB Intel
NVMe cache drive
This is correct. This details the cache tier—two disk groups per host with one 300GB NVMe drive
each. Cache drives are physical hardware in vSAN OSA, directly part of the physical design for
performance and capacity sizing.
Option D: DD04 - Disk drives capable of encryption at rest
This is a hardware capability but not strictly a physical design decision in isolation. Encryption at rest
(e.g., SEDs) is enabled via vSAN configuration and policy, blending physical (drive type) and logical
(encryption enablement) aspects. In VCF, it’s typically a requirement or constraint, not a standalone
physical choice, making it less definitive here.
Option E: DD05 - Dual 10Gb or higher storage network adapters
This is a physical design decision (network adapters are hardware), but in VCF 5.2, storage traffic
(vSAN) typically uses the same NICs as other traffic (e.g., management, vMotion) on a converged
network. While valid, DD02 and DD03 are more specific to the storage subsystem’s physical layout,
taking precedence in this context.
Conclusion:
The two design decisions for the physical design are DD02 (B) and DD03 (C). They specify the vSAN
OSA disk group configuration—capacity and cache drives—directly shaping the physical
infrastructure of the VCF hosts.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: vSAN OSA Design)
VMware vSAN 7.0U3 Planning and Deployment Guide (integrated in VCF 5.2): Physical Design
Considerations
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Storage Hardware)
An architect is designing a new VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF)-based Private Cloud solution.
During the requirements gathering workshop, a stakeholder from the network team stated that:
The solution must ensure that any physical networking component is redundant to N+N.
The solution must ensure inter-datacenter network links are diversely routed.
When writing the design documentation, how should the architect classify the stated requirement?
A
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, design qualities (non-functional requirements) categorize
how the system operates. The network team’s requirements focus on redundancy and routing
diversity, which the architect must classify. Let’s evaluate:
Option A: Availability
This is correct. Availability ensures the solution remains operational and accessible. “N+N
redundancy” (e.g., dual active components where N failures are tolerated by N spares) for physical
networking components eliminates single points of failure, ensuring continuous network uptime.
“Diversely routed inter-datacenter links” prevents outages from a single path failure, enhancing
availability across sites. In VCF, these align with high-availability network design (e.g., NSX Edge
uplink redundancy), making availability the proper classification.
Option B: Performance
Performance addresses speed, throughput, or latency (e.g., “10 Gbps links”). Redundancy and
diverse routing might indirectly support performance by avoiding bottlenecks, but the primary intent
is uptime, not speed. This doesn’t fit the stated requirements’ focus.
Option C: Recoverability
Recoverability focuses on restoring service after a failure (e.g., backups, failover time). N+N
redundancy and diverse routing prevent downtime rather than recover from it. While related, the
requirements emphasize proactive uptime (availability) over post-failure recovery, making this
incorrect.
Option D: Manageability
Manageability concerns ease of administration (e.g., monitoring, configuration). Redundancy and
routing diversity are infrastructure design choices, not management processes. This quality doesn’t
apply.
Conclusion:
The architect should classify the requirement as Availability (A). It ensures the VCF solution’s
network remains operational, aligning with VCF 5.2’s focus on resilient design.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Qualities)
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Network Availability)
An architect is working on a leaf-spine design requirement for NSX Federation in VMware Cloud
Foundation. Which recommendation should the architect document?
D
Explanation:
NSX Federation in VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 extends networking and security across
multiple VCF instances (e.g., across data centers) using a leaf-spine underlay network. The architect
must recommend a physical network design that supports this. Let’s evaluate:
Option A: Use a physical network that is configured for EIGRP routing adjacency
Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) is a Cisco-proprietary routing protocol. NSX
Federation requires a Layer 3 underlay with dynamic routing (e.g., BGP, OSPF), but EIGRP isn’t a
VMware-recommended standard for NSX leaf-spine designs. BGP is preferred for its scalability and
interoperability in NSX-T 3.2 (used in VCF 5.2). This option is not optimal.
Option B: Layer 3 device that supports OSPF
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is a supported routing protocol for NSX underlays, alongside BGP. A
Layer 3 device with OSPF could work in a leaf-spine topology, but VMware documentation
emphasizes BGP as the primary choice for NSX Federation due to its robustness in multi-site
scenarios. OSPF is valid but not the strongest recommendation for Federation-specific designs.
Option C: Ensure that the latency between VMware Cloud Foundation instances that are connected
in an NSX Federation is less than 1500 ms
NSX Federation requires low latency between sites for control plane consistency (Global Manager to
Local Managers). The maximum supported latency is 150 ms (not 1500 ms), per VMware specs. 1500
ms (1.5 seconds) is far too high and would disrupt Federation operations, making this incorrect.
Option D: Jumbo frames on the components of the physical network between the VMware Cloud
Foundation instances
This is correct. NSX Federation relies on NSX-T overlay traffic (Geneve encapsulation) across sites,
which benefits from jumbo frames (MTU ≥ 9000) to reduce fragmentation and improve performance.
In a leaf-spine design, enabling jumbo frames on all physical network components (switches, routers)
between VCF instances ensures efficient transport of tunneled traffic (e.g., for stretched networks).
VMware strongly recommends this for NSX underlays, making it the best recommendation.
Conclusion:
The architect should document D: Jumbo frames on the components of the physical network
between the VMware Cloud Foundation instances. This aligns with VCF 5.2 and NSX Federation’s
leaf-spine design requirements for optimal performance and scalability.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: NSX Federation
Networking)
NSX-T 3.2 Reference Design (integrated in VCF 5.2): Leaf-Spine Underlay Requirements
VMware NSX-T 3.2 Installation Guide: Jumbo Frame Recommendations
A VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) platform has been commissioned, and lines of business are
requesting approved virtual machine applications via the platform’s integrated automation portal.
The platform was built following all provided company security guidelines and has been assessed
against Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) regulations. The platform has the following characteristics:
One Management Domain with a single cluster, supporting all management services with all network
traffic handled by a single Distributed Virtual Switch (DVS).
A dedicated VI Workload Domain with a single cluster for all line of business applications.
A dedicated VI Workload Domain with a single cluster for Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI).
Aria Operations is being used to monitor all clusters.
VI Workload Domains are using a shared NSX instance.
An application owner has asked for approval to install a new service that must be protected as per
the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard, which is going to be verified by a third-party
organization. To support the new service, which additional non-functional requirement should be
added to the design?
A
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, non-functional requirements define how the system
operates (e.g., security, performance), not what it does. The new service must comply with PCI DSS,
a standard for protecting cardholder data, and the design must reflect this. The platform is already
SOX-compliant, and the question seeks an additional non-functional requirement to support PCI
compliance. Let’s evaluate:
Option A: The VCF platform and all PCI application virtual machines must be monitored using the
Aria Operations Compliance Pack for Payment Card Industry
This is correct. PCI DSS requires continuous monitoring and auditing (e.g., Requirement 10). The Aria
Operations Compliance Pack for PCI provides pre-configured dashboards, alerts, and reports tailored
to PCI DSS, ensuring the VCF platform and PCI VMs meet these standards. This is a non-functional
requirement (monitoring quality), leverages existing Aria Operations, and directly supports the new
service’s compliance needs, making it the best addition.
Option B: The VCF platform and all PCI application virtual machines must be assessed for SOX
compliance
This is incorrect. The platform is already SOX-compliant, as stated. SOX (financial reporting) and PCI
DSS (cardholder data) are distinct standards. Reassessing for SOX doesn’t address the new service’s
PCI requirement and adds no value to the design for this purpose.
Option C: The VCF platform and all PCI application virtual machine network traffic must be routed via
NSX
This is incorrect as a new requirement. The VI Workload Domains already use a shared NSX instance,
implying NSX handles network traffic (e.g., overlay, security policies). PCI DSS requires network
segmentation (Requirement 1), which NSX already supports. Adding this as a “new” requirement is
redundant since it’s an existing characteristic, not an additional need.
Option D: The VCF platform and all PCI application virtual machines must be assessed against
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) compliance
This is a strong contender but incorrect as a non-functional requirement. Assessing against PCI DSS is
a process or action, not a quality of the system’s operation. Non-functional requirements specify
ongoing attributes (e.g., “must be secure,” “must be monitored”), not one-time assessments. While
PCI compliance is the goal, this option is more a project mandate than a design quality.
Conclusion:
The additional non-functional requirement to support the new PCI-compliant service is A: monitoring
via the Aria Operations Compliance Pack for PCI. This ensures ongoing compliance with PCI DSS
monitoring requirements, integrates with the existing VCF design, and qualifies as a non-functional
attribute in VCF 5.2.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Aria Operations
Compliance Packs)
VMware Aria Operations 8.10 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): PCI Compliance Pack
PCI DSS 3.2.1 (Requirements 1, 10: Network Segmentation and Monitoring
An architect is planning the deployment of Aria components in a VMware Cloud Foundation
environment using SDDC Manager and must prepare a logical diagram with networking connections
for particular Aria products. Which are two valid Application Virtual Networks for Aria Operations
deployment using SDDC Manager? (Choose two.)
B, C
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, Aria Operations (formerly vRealize Operations) is deployed
via SDDC Manager to monitor the environment. SDDC Manager automates the deployment of Aria
components, including networking configuration, using Application Virtual Networks (AVNs). AVNs
provide isolated network segments for management components. The question asks for valid AVNs
for Aria Operations, which operates within the Management Domain. Let’s evaluate:
VCF Networking Context:
Region-Specific (Region-A): Refers to a single VCF instance or region, typically the Management
Domain’s scope.
Cross-Region (X-Region): Spans multiple regions or instances, used for components needing broader
connectivity.
VLAN-backed: Traditional Layer 2 VLANs on physical switches, common for management traffic.
Overlay-backed: NSX-T virtual segments using Geneve encapsulation, used for flexibility and
isolation.
Aria Operations Deployment:
Deployed in the Management Domain by SDDC Manager onto a single cluster.
Requires connectivity to vCenter, NSX, and ESXi hosts for monitoring, typically using management
network segments.
SDDC Manager assigns Aria Operations to an AVN during deployment, favoring VLAN-backed
segments for simplicity and compatibility with management traffic.
Evaluation:
Option A: Region-A - Overlay backed segment
Overlay segments (NSX-T) are supported in VCF for workload traffic or advanced isolation, but Aria
Operations, as a management component, typically uses VLAN-backed segments for direct
connectivity to other management services (e.g., vCenter, SDDC Manager). While technically
possible, SDDC Manager defaults to VLANs for Aria deployments unless explicitly overridden, making
this less standard and not a primary valid choice.
Option B: Region-A - VLAN backed segment
This is correct. A VLAN-backed segment in Region-A aligns with the Management Domain’s
networking, where Aria Operations resides. SDDC Manager uses VLANs (e.g., Management VLAN) for
management components to ensure straightforward deployment and connectivity to vSphere/NSX.
This is a valid and common AVN for Aria Operations in VCF 5.2.
Option C: X-Region - VLAN backed segment
This is correct. An X-Region VLAN-backed segment supports cross-region management traffic, which
is valid if Aria Operations monitors multiple VCF instances or domains (e.g., Management and VI
Workload Domains across regions). SDDC Manager supports this for broader visibility, making it a
valid AVN, especially in multi-site designs.
Option D: X-Region - Overlay backed segment
Similar to Option A, overlay segments are feasible with NSX-T but less common for Aria Operations.
X-Region overlay could theoretically work for multi-site monitoring, but SDDC Manager prioritizes
VLANs for management simplicity and compatibility. This is not a default or primary valid choice.
Conclusion:
The two valid Application Virtual Networks for Aria Operations deployment using SDDC Manager are
Region-A - VLAN backed segment (B) and X-Region - VLAN backed segment (C). These reflect VCF
5.2’s standard use of VLANs for management components, supporting both local and cross-region
monitoring scenarios.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Aria Operations
Deployment)
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Networking for
Management Components)
VMware Aria Operations 8.10 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): Network Configuration
An architect is working on higher-scale NSX Grouping and security design requirements for
Management and VI Workload Domains in VMware Cloud Foundation. Which NSX Manager
appliance size will be considered for use?
B
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, NSX Manager appliances manage networking and security
(e.g., grouping, policies, firewalls) for Management and VI Workload Domains. The appliance size—
Small, Medium, Large, Extra Large—determines its capacity to handle scale, such as the number of
hosts, VMs, and security objects. The phrase “higher scale” implies a larger-than-minimum
deployment. Let’s evaluate:
NSX Manager Appliance Sizes (VCF 5.2 with NSX-T 3.2):
Small: 4 vCPUs, 16 GB RAM, 300 GB disk. Supports up to 16 hosts, basic deployments (e.g., lab
environments).
Medium: 6 vCPUs, 24 GB RAM, 300 GB disk. Supports up to 64 hosts, suitable for small to medium
production environments.
Large: 12 vCPUs, 48 GB RAM, 300 GB disk. Supports up to 512 hosts, 10,000 VMs, and complex
security policies—standard for production VCF.
Extra Large: 24 vCPUs, 64 GB RAM, 300 GB disk. Supports over 512 hosts, massive scale (e.g., service
providers, multi-VCF instances).
VCF Context:
Management Domain: Minimum 4 hosts, often 6-7 for HA, with NSX for overlay networking.
VI Workload Domains: Variable host counts, but “higher scale” suggests multiple domains or
significant workload growth.
Security Design: Grouping and policies (e.g., distributed firewall rules, tags) increase NSX Manager
load, especially at scale.
Evaluation:
Small: Insufficient for production VCF, limited to 16 hosts. Unsuitable for a Management Domain (4-7
hosts) plus VI Workload Domains.
Medium: Adequate for small VCF deployments (up to 64 hosts), but “higher scale” implies more
hosts or complex security, exceeding its capacity.
Large: The default and recommended size for VCF 5.2 production environments. It supports up to 512
hosts, thousands of VMs, and extensive security policies, fitting a Management Domain and multiple
VI Workload Domains with “higher scale” needs.
Extra Large: Overkill unless managing hundreds of hosts or multiple VCF instances, which isn’t
indicated here.
Conclusion:
The Large NSX Manager appliance size (Option B) is appropriate for a higher-scale NSX design in VCF
5.2. It balances capacity and performance for Management and VI Workload Domains with advanced
security requirements, aligning with VMware’s standard recommendation.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: NSX Manager Sizing)
NSX-T 3.2 Installation Guide (integrated in VCF 5.2): Appliance Size Specifications
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Security Design)
An architect is tasked with designing a new VMware Cloud Foundation environment and has
identified the following customer-provided requirements:
REQ01: The application server must handle at least 30,000 transactions per second.
REQ02: The design must meet ISO 27001 information security standards.
REQ03: The storage network should maintain a minimum latency of 12 milliseconds before path
failover.
REQ04: The staging environment should utilize a secondary third-party data center.
REQ05: Planned maintenance must be performed outside the hours of 8 AM to 8 PM GMT.
What are the two functional requirements? (Choose two.)
A, D
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, requirements are classified as functional (what the system
must do) or non-functional (how the system performs or operates). Functional requirements
describe specific capabilities or behaviors, while non-functional requirements address qualities like
performance, security, or constraints. Let’s classify each:
Option A: REQ01 - The application server must handle at least 30,000 transactions per second
This is correct. This is a functional requirement because it specifies what the application server (a
component of the solution) must do—process a defined transaction volume. It’s a capability the
system must deliver, directly tied to workload performance within the VCF environment.
Option B: REQ02 - The design must meet ISO 27001 information security standards
This is a non-functional requirement. ISO 27001 addresses security qualities (e.g., confidentiality,
integrity), defining how the system should operate securely, not what it does. It’s a compliance and
operational constraint, not a functional capability.
Option C: REQ03 - The storage network should maintain a minimum latency of 12 milliseconds
before path failover
This is a non-functional requirement. It specifies a performance threshold (latency) and reliability
behavior (failover), describing how the storage network should perform, not a specific function it
must provide.
Option D: REQ04 - The staging environment should utilize a secondary third-party data center
This is correct. This is a functional requirement because it defines what the solution must include—a
staging environment located in a specific secondary data center. It’s a capability or structural
requirement of the VCF deployment, dictating a functional aspect of the system.
Option E: REQ05 - Planned maintenance must be performed outside the hours of 8 AM to 8 PM GMT
This is a non-functional requirement. It’s an operational constraint on when maintenance occurs,
affecting availability and manageability, not a specific function the system must perform.
Conclusion:
The two functional requirements are REQ01 (A) and REQ04 (D). They define what the VCF solution
must do (handle transactions, include a staging environment), aligning with VMware’s design
methodology for functional specifications.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Functional vs. Non-
Functional Requirements)
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Requirements
Classification)
An architect is collaborating with a client to design a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) solution
required for a highly secure infrastructure project that must remain isolated from all other virtual
infrastructures. The client has already acquired six high-density vSAN-ready nodes, and there is no
budget to add additional nodes throughout the expected lifespan of this project. Assuming capacity
is appropriately sized, which VCF architecture model and topology should the architect suggest?
C
Explanation:
VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 offers various architecture models (Consolidated, Standard) and
topologies (Single/Multiple Instance, Single/Multiple Availability Zones) to meet different
requirements. The client’s needs—high security, isolation, six vSAN-ready nodes, and no additional
budget—guide the architect’s choice. Let’s evaluate each option:
Option A: Single Instance - Multiple Availability Zone Standard architecture model
This model uses a single VCF instance with separate Management and VI Workload Domains across
multiple availability zones (AZs) for resilience. It requires at least four nodes per AZ (minimum for
vSAN HA), meaning six nodes are insufficient for two AZs (eight nodes minimum). It also increases
complexity and doesn’t inherently enhance isolation from other infrastructures. This option is
impractical given the node constraint.
Option B: Single Instance Consolidated architecture model
The Consolidated model runs management and workload components on a single cluster (minimum
four nodes, up to eight typically). With six nodes, this is feasible and capacity-efficient, but it
compromises isolation because management and user workloads share the same infrastructure. For
a “highly secure” and “isolated” project, mixing workloads increases the attack surface and risks
compliance, making this less suitable despite fitting the node count.
Option C: Single Instance - Single Availability Zone Standard architecture model
This is the correct answer. The Standard model separates management (minimum four nodes) and VI
Workload Domains (minimum three nodes, but often four for HA) within a single VCF instance and
AZ. With six nodes, the architect can allocate four to the Management Domain and two to a VI
Workload Domain (or adjust based on capacity). A single AZ fits the budget constraint (no extra
nodes), and isolation is achieved by dedicating the VCF instance to this project, separate from other
infrastructures. The high-density vSAN nodes support both domains, and security is enhanced by
logical separation of management and workloads, aligning with VCF 5.2 best practices for secure
deployments.
Option D: Multiple Instance - Single Availability Zone Standard architecture model
Multiple VCF instances (e.g., one for management, one for workloads) in a single AZ require separate
node pools, each with a minimum of four nodes for vSAN. Six nodes cannot support two instances
(eight nodes minimum), making this option unfeasible given the budget and hardware constraints.
Conclusion:
The Single Instance - Single Availability Zone Standard architecture model (Option C) is the best fit. It
uses six nodes efficiently (e.g., four for Management, two for Workload), ensures isolation by
dedicating the instance to the project, and meets security needs through logical separation, all within
the budget limitation.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Architecture Models
and Topologies)
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Sizing and Isolation
Considerations)
An architect is designing a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF)-based Private Cloud solution. During the
requirements gathering workshop with customer stakeholders, the following information was
captured:
The solution must be capable of deploying 50 concurrent workloads.
The solution must ensure that once submitted, each service does not take longer than 6 hours to
provision.
When creating the design documentation, which design quality should be used to classify the stated
requirements?
C
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, design qualities (or non-functional requirements) categorize
how the solution meets its objectives. The requirements—“deploying 50 concurrent workloads” and
“provisioning each service within 6 hours”—must be classified under a quality that reflects their
intent. Let’s evaluate each option:
Option A: Availability
Availability ensures the solution is accessible and operational when needed (e.g., uptime
percentage). While deploying workloads and provisioning services assume availability, the
requirements focus on speed and capacity (50 concurrent workloads, 6-hour limit), not uptime or
fault tolerance. This quality doesn’t directly address the stated needs, making it incorrect.
Option B: Recoverability
Recoverability addresses the ability to restore services after a failure (e.g., disaster recovery). The
requirements don’t mention failure scenarios, backups, or restoration—they focus on provisioning
speed and concurrency during normal operation. Recoverability is unrelated to these operational
metrics, so this is incorrect.
Option C: Performance
This is the correct answer. Performance measures how well the solution executes tasks, including
speed, throughput, and capacity. In VCF 5.2:
“Deploying 50 concurrent workloads” is a throughput requirement, ensuring the system can handle
multiple deployments simultaneously.
“Each service does not take longer than 6 hours to provision” is a latency or response time
requirement, setting a performance boundary.
Both align with the performance quality, which governs resource efficiency and user experience in
provisioning workflows (e.g., via SDDC Manager or Aria Automation). This classification fits
VMware’s design framework.
Option D: Manageability
Manageability focuses on ease of administration, monitoring, and maintenance (e.g., automation, UI
simplicity). While provisioning workloads involves management, the requirements emphasize how
fast and how many—performance metrics—not the ease of managing the process. Manageability
might apply to tools enabling this, but it’s not the primary quality here.
Conclusion:
The design quality to classify these requirements is Performance (Option C). It directly reflects the
solution’s ability to handle 50 concurrent workloads and provision services within 6 hours, aligning
with VCF 5.2’s focus on operational efficiency.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Qualities)
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Performance
Considerations)
An architect is documenting the design for a new VMware Cloud Foundation-based solution.
Following the requirements gathering workshops held with customer stakeholders, the architect has
made the following assumptions:
The customer will provide sufficient licensing for the scale of the new solution.
The existing storage array that is to be used for the user workloads has sufficient capacity to meet the
demands of the new solution.
The data center offers sufficient power, cooling, and rack space for the physical hosts required by the
new solution.
The physical network infrastructure within the data center will not exceed the maximum latency
requirements of the new solution.
Which two risks must the architect include as a part of the design document because of these
assumptions? (Choose two.)
A, C
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, assumptions are statements taken as true for design
purposes, but they introduce risks if unverified. The architect must identify risks—potential issues
that could impact the solution’s success—stemming from these assumptions and include them in the
design document. Let’s evaluate each option against the assumptions:
Option A: The physical network infrastructure may not provide sufficient bandwidth to support the
user workloads
This is correct. The assumption states that the physical network infrastructure “will not exceed the
maximum latency requirements,” but it doesn’t address bandwidth. In VCF, user workloads (e.g., in
VI Workload Domains) rely on network bandwidth for performance (e.g., vSAN traffic, VM
communication). Insufficient bandwidth could degrade workload performance or scalability, despite
meeting latency requirements. This is a direct risk tied to an unaddressed aspect of the network
assumption, making it a necessary inclusion.
Option B: The customer may not have sufficient data center power, cooling, and physical rack space
available
This is incorrect as a mandatory risk in this context. The assumption explicitly states that “the data
center offers sufficient power, cooling, and rack space” for the required hosts. While it’s possible this
could be untrue, the risk is already implicitly covered by questioning the assumption’s validity.
Including this risk would be redundant unless specific evidence (e.g., unverified data center specs)
suggests doubt, which isn’t provided. Other risks (A, C) are more immediate and distinct.
Option C: The customer may not have licensing that covers all of the physical cores the design
requires
This is correct. The assumption states that “the customer will provide sufficient licensing for the scale
of the new solution.” In VCF 5.2, licensing (e.g., vSphere, vSAN, NSX) is core-based, and misjudging
the number of physical cores (e.g., due to host specs or scale) could lead to insufficient licenses. This
risk directly challenges the assumption’s accuracy—if the customer’s licensing doesn’t match the
design’s core count, deployment could stall or incur unplanned costs. It’s a critical risk to document.
Option D: The assumptions may not be approved by a majority of the customer stakeholders before
the solution is deployed
This is incorrect. While stakeholder approval is important, this is a process-related risk, not a
technical or operational risk tied to the assumptions’ content. The VMware design methodology
focuses risks on solution impact (e.g., performance, capacity), not procedural uncertainties like
consensus. This risk is too vague and outside the scope of the assumptions’ direct implications.
Conclusion:
The two risks the architect must include are:
A: Insufficient network bandwidth (not covered by the latency assumption).
C: Inadequate licensing for physical cores (directly tied to the licensing assumption).
These align with VCF 5.2 design principles, ensuring potential gaps in network performance and
licensing are flagged for validation or mitigation.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Risk Identification)
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Network and Licensing
Considerations)
An architect has been tasked with reviewing a VMware Cloud Foundation design document. Observe
the following requirements:
REQ01: The solution must support the private cloud cybersecurity industry and local standards and
controls.
REQ02: The solution must ensure that the cloud services are transitioned to operation teams.
REQ03: The solution must provide a self-service portal.
REQ04: The solution must provide the ability to consume storage based on policies.
REQ05: The solution should provide the ability to extend networks between different availability
zones.
Observe the following design decisions:
DD01: There will be a clustered deployment of Aria Automation.
DD02: There will be an integration between Aria Automation and multiple geo-located vCenter
Servers.
Based on the information provided, which two requirements satisfy the stated design decisions?
(Choose two.)
C, E
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, VMware Aria Automation (formerly vRealize Automation)
enhances the platform by providing self-service, automation, and multi-site management
capabilities. The architect must determine which requirements (REQ01-REQ05) are directly satisfied
by the design decisions (DD01 and DD02). Let’s evaluate each requirement against the decisions:
Design Decisions:
DD01: Clustered deployment of Aria Automation
A clustered deployment ensures high availability and scalability of Aria Automation, supporting
multiple users and workloads with resilience.
DD02: Integration between Aria Automation and multiple geo-located vCenter Servers
This enables centralized management of distributed vSphere environments (e.g., across availability
zones or regions), facilitating network and resource orchestration.
Evaluation of Requirements:
Option A: REQ01 - The solution must support the private cloud cybersecurity industry and local
standards and controls
This requirement focuses on cybersecurity and compliance (e.g., encryption, access controls,
auditing). While Aria Automation supports role-based access control (RBAC) and integrates with
secure VCF components, neither DD01 nor DD02 directly addresses cybersecurity standards or local
controls. These are typically met by VCF’s baseline security features (e.g., NSX, vSphere hardening),
not specifically by Aria Automation’s clustering or vCenter integration. Thus, REQ01 is not directly
satisfied by the stated decisions.
Option B: REQ02 - The solution must ensure that the cloud services are transitioned to operation
teams
This requirement implies operational handoff, training, or automation to enable operations teams to
manage services. Aria Automation’s clustering (DD01) improves reliability, and vCenter integration
(DD02) centralizes management, but neither explicitly ensures a transition process (e.g.,
documentation, runbooks). This is more about operational processes than the technical decisions
provided, so REQ02 is not directly satisfied.
Option C: REQ03 - The solution must provide a self-service portal
This is correct. Aria Automation’s primary function in VCF 5.2 is to provide a self-service portal for
users to provision and manage resources (e.g., VMs, applications). A clustered deployment (DD01)
ensures the portal’s availability and scalability, supporting multiple users concurrently. Integration
with vCenter Servers (DD02) enhances its capability to deploy resources across sites, but DD01 alone
directly satisfies REQ03 by enabling a robust self-service experience. Thus, REQ03 is satisfied.
Option D: REQ04 - The solution must provide the ability to consume storage based on policies
This requirement involves policy-driven storage management (e.g., vSAN storage policies). Aria
Automation supports storage policies via integration with vSphere/vSAN, allowing users to define
storage profiles (e.g., performance, capacity). However, this capability is inherent to vSphere/vSAN
integration, not uniquely tied to clustering (DD01) or geo-located vCenter integration (DD02). While
Aria Automation facilitates this, the design decisions don’t specifically address storage policy
consumption as a primary outcome, making REQ04 less directly satisfied compared to others.
Option E: REQ05 - The solution should provide the ability to extend networks between different
availability zones
This is correct. Integrating Aria Automation with multiple geo-located vCenter Servers (DD02)
enables management of distributed environments, including network extension across availability
zones. In VCF 5.2, this leverages NSX-T for Layer 2 stretching (e.g., via HCX or NSX Federation),
orchestrated through Aria Automation. DD02 directly supports this by connecting disparate vCenters,
allowing network policies and extensions to be applied across zones. Clustering (DD01) supports
scalability but isn’t the key factor—DD02 is the primary enabler. Thus, REQ05 is satisfied.
Conclusion:
The two requirements satisfied by the design decisions are:
REQ03 (C): A clustered Aria Automation deployment (DD01) directly provides a reliable self-service
portal.
REQ05 (E): Integration with multiple geo-located vCenter Servers (DD02) enables network extension
across availability zones.
While REQ04 is partially supported, REQ03 and REQ05 are the most directly tied to the stated
decisions in the VCF 5.2 context.
Reference:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Aria Automation
Integration)
VMware Aria Automation 8.10 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): Self-Service Portal and Multi-
Site Management
VMware NSX-T 3.2 Reference Design (integrated in VCF 5.2): Network Extension Capabilities