2V0-13.24 Exam Dumps - VMware Professional Questions and Answers

The requirement specifies that management tooling must be resilient at the component level within a single site, meaning each site’s management components (e.g., VMware Aria Suite) must withstand individual failures without relying on the other site. Let’s evaluate each option in the context of VCF 5.2 and Aria Suite:

Option A: The solution will implement an external load balancer for Aria Operations Cloud ProxiesAria Operations Cloud Proxies collect data for monitoring and don’t inherently require an external load balancer for resiliency within a site. TheVMware Aria Operations Administration Guideindicates that proxies are lightweight and typically deployed per cluster, with resiliency achieved via multiple proxies, not load balancing. This doesn’t directly address component-level resiliency for the broader Aria Suite management tools.

Option B: The solution will configure the VCF Workload domain in a stretched topology across two locationsA stretched topology extends a workload domain across two sites for site-level resiliency (e.g., disaster recovery), not component-level resiliency within a single site. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidenotes that stretched clusters rely on cross-site failover, which contradicts the requirement for single-site resilience, making this irrelevant to management tooling within one site.

Option C: The solution will deploy three Aria Automation appliances in a clustered configurationVMware Aria Automation (formerly vRealize Automation) supports a clustered deployment with three appliances (primary, replica, and failover) to ensure high availability within a site. TheVMware Aria Automation Installation Guideconfirms that this configuration provides component-level resiliency by allowing the cluster to tolerate individual appliance failures without service disruption. In VCF, Aria Automation is a key management tool, and this design meets the requirement for single-site resilience.

Option D: The solution will deploy Aria Suite Lifecycle Manager in a high availability configurationAria Suite Lifecycle Manager (LCM) manages the lifecycle of Aria components but isn’t deployed in a clustered HA configuration itself in VCF 5.2—it’s a single appliance with backup/restore options. TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guidenotes that LCM resiliency is typically achieved via infrastructure HA (e.g., vSphere HA), not native clustering, making this less directly aligned with component-level resiliency compared to Aria Automation clustering.

Conclusion:Option C best meets the requirement by ensuring Aria Automation, a critical management tool, is resilient at the component level within a single site through clustering, aligning with VCF and Aria Suite best practices.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Management Component Design.

VMware Aria Automation Installation Guide(docs.vmware.com): Clustered Configuration for HA.

VMware Aria Suite Lifecycle Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): LCM Deployment Options.

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:TheSingle 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.

References:

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)

Business requirements in VCF articulate organizational objectives that the solution must enable, often focusing on efficiency, cost, or service improvements rather than specific technical implementations. Option B, "Decrease processing time for service requests by 30%," is a business requirement as it targets an operational efficiency goal that benefits the customer’s service delivery, measurable from a business perspective rather than dictating how the system achieves it. Options A, C, and D—specifying OS compatibility, user capacity, and encryption standards—are technical requirements, as they detail system capabilities or security mechanisms that architects must implement within VCF components like vSphere or NSX. The distinction hinges on intent: B focuses on outcome (speed), while others define system properties.

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, design documentation categorizes information into requirements, assumptions, constraints, risks, and decisions to guide the solution’s implementation. The need for workloads in VI Workload Domains to connect to an existing Fibre Channel (FC) storage array has specific implications. Let’s analyze how this should be classified:

Option A: As an assumptionAn assumption is a statement taken as true without proof, typically used when information is uncertain or unverified. The scenario states that the architectdiscoveredthis need during workshops with stakeholders, implying it’s a confirmed fact, not a guess. Documenting it as an assumption (e.g., “We assume workloads need FC storage”) would understate its certainty and misrepresent its role in the design process. This option is incorrect.

Option B: As a constraintThis is the correct answer. Aconstraintis a limitation or restriction that influences the design, often imposed by existing infrastructure, policies, or resources. The requirement to use an existing FC storage array limits the storage options for the VI Workload Domains, as VCF natively uses vSAN as the principal storage for workload domains. Integrating FC storage introduces additional complexity (e.g., FC zoning, HBA configuration) and restricts the design from relying solely on vSAN. In VCF 5.2, external storage like FC is supported via supplemental storage for VI Workload Domains, but it’s a deviation from the default architecture, making it a constraint imposed by the environment. Documenting it as such ensures it’s accounted for in planning and implementation.

Option C: As a design decisionA design decision is a deliberate choice made by the architect to meet requirements (e.g., “We will use FC storage over iSCSI”). Here, the need for FC storage is a stakeholder-provided fact, not a choice the architect made. The decision tosupportFC storage might follow, but the initial discovery is a pre-existing condition, not the decision itself. Classifying it as a design decision skips the step of recognizing it as a design input, making this option incorrect.

Option D: As a business requirementA business requirement defineswhatthe organization needs to achieve (e.g., “Workloads must support 99.9% uptime”). While the FC storage need relates to workloads, it’s a technical specification abouthowconnectivity is achieved, not a high-level business goal. Business requirements typically originate from organizational objectives, not infrastructure details discovered in workshops. This option is too broad and misaligned with the technical nature of the information, making it incorrect.

Conclusion:The need to connect workloads to an existing FC storage array is aconstraint(Option B) because it limits the storage design options for the VI Workload Domains and reflects an existing environmental factor. In VCF 5.2, this would influence the architect to plan for Fibre Channel HBAs, external storage configuration, and compatibility with vSphere, documenting it as a constraint ensures these considerations are addressed.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: VI Workload Domain Storage Options)

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

vSphere 7.0U3 Storage Guide (integrated in VCF 5.2): External Storage Integration

This scenario involves a VCF multi-AZ design where AZs must operate independently (no shared dependencies) and achieve a 99.9% availability SLA (allowing ~8.76 hours of downtime annually). The design decisions must ensure resilience, fault isolation, and recovery capabilities across AZs.

Requirement Analysis:

Independent AZ operation:Each AZ must function standalone, with no single point of failure or dependency across AZs.

99.9% availability:The design must minimize downtime through redundancy, replication, and recovery mechanisms.

Option Analysis:

A. Configure array-based replication between the selected AZ(s) for the management domain:Array-based replication (e.g., vSphere Replication or SAN replication) for the management domain (vCenter, NSX Manager, SDDC Manager) ensures that critical management VMs are duplicated across AZs. If one AZ fails, the other can take over with minimal downtime, supporting independent operation and high availability. The VCF 5.2 Design Guide recommends replication for multi-AZ deployments to meet SLAs, as it provides a recovery point objective (RPO) near zero. This option enhances availability and is correct.

B. Make sure all configuration backups are replicated between the selected AZ(s):Replicating configuration backups (e.g., SDDC Manager backups, NSX configurations) ensures that each AZ has access to recovery data. If an AZ’s management components fail, the other AZ can restore operations independently using its local backup copy. This supports the independence requirement and reduces downtime (contributing to 99.9% SLA) by enabling quick recovery. The VCF Administration Guide emphasizes backup replication for multi-AZ resilience, making this option correct.

C. Make sure the recovery VLAN for the infrastructure management components has access to both AZ(s):A recovery VLAN spanning both AZs implies a shared network dependency. If this VLAN fails (e.g., due to a network outage), both AZs could be impacted, violating the independence requirement. Multi-AZ designs in VCF favor isolated networks per AZ to avoid cross-AZ single points of failure. The VCF Design Guide advises against shared VLANs for critical components in independent AZ setups. This option undermines the requirements and is incorrect.

D. Choose two distant AZ(s) and consider each AZ the DR for the other:Distant AZs (e.g., separate data centers) with mutual DR (disaster recovery) roles enhance geographic fault tolerance. However, “operate independently” in VCF typically means each AZ can run workloads standalone, not that one is a passive DR site. Distant AZs introduce latency, complicating synchronous replication needed for 99.9% availability, and may rely on shared management, conflicting with independence. The VCF Multi-AZ Guide focuses on active-active AZs, not DR-centric designs, making this less suitable.

E. Choose two close proximity AZ(s) and configure a stretched management workload domain:A stretched management domain (e.g., using vSAN stretched cluster) spans AZs with synchronous replication, ensuring high availability. However, this creates a dependency: both AZs share the same vCenter and management stack, so a failure (e.g., vCenter outage) could affect both, violating independence. The VCF 5.2 Design Guide notes stretched clusters are for single logical domains, not independent AZs. This option contradicts the requirement and is incorrect.

F. Configure a non-routable separate recovery VLAN for the infrastructure management components within each AZ:A non-routable, AZ-specific recovery VLAN isolates management recovery traffic (e.g., for vMotion, backups) within each AZ. This ensures that each AZ’s management components operate independently, with no cross-AZ network reliance. If one AZ’s network fails, the other remains unaffected, supporting the SLA through fault isolation. The VCF Multi-AZ Design Guide recommends separate, isolated networks per AZ for resilience, making this option correct.

Conclusion:The three design decisions areConfigure array-based replication between the selected AZ(s) for the management domain (A),Make sure all configuration backups are replicated between the selected AZ(s) (B), andConfigure a non-routable separate recovery VLAN for the infrastructure management components within each AZ (F). These ensure independent operation and meet the 99.9% SLA through replication and isolation.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Design Guide (Section: Multi-AZ Design)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide (Section: Backup and Recovery)

VMware Cloud Foundation Multi-AZ Deployment Guide (Section: Networking)

VMware vSphere 8.0 Update 3 Documentation (Section: vSAN Stretched Clusters)

The requirements focus on trust, encryption, and lifecycle management for a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 solution. VCF leverages SDDC Manager, vCenter Server, NSX, and ESXi hosts as core management components, and their security and manageability are critical. Let’s evaluate each option against the requirements:

Option A: Integrate the SDDC Manager with a supported 3rd-party certificate authority (CA)This is the correct answer. In VCF 5.2, integrating SDDC Manager with a 3rd-party CA (e.g., Microsoft CA, OpenSSL) allows it to manage and deploy trusted certificates across all management components (e.g., vCenter, NSX Manager, ESXi hosts). This ensures:

Trusted administrative access: Certificates from a trusted CA secure administrative interfaces (e.g., HTTPS access to SDDC Manager and vCenter), ensuring authenticated and verified connections.

Encrypted communications: All management component interactions (e.g., API calls, UI access) use TLS with CA-signed certificates, encrypting data in transit.

Lifecycle management enhancement: SDDC Manager automates certificate lifecycle operations (e.g., issuance, renewal, replacement), reducing manual effort and improving operational efficiency.The VMware Cloud Foundation documentation explicitly supports this integration as a best practice for security and scalability, fulfilling all three requirements comprehensively.

Option B: Integrate the SDDC Manager with the vCenter Server in VMCA modeThis is incorrect. The vCenter Server’s VMware Certificate Authority (VMCA) can issue certificates for vSphere components (e.g., ESXi hosts, vCenter itself), but it operates within the vSphere domain, not across the broader VCF stack. SDDC Manager requires a higher-level CA integration to managecertificates for all components (including NSX and itself). VMCA mode doesn’t extend trust to SDDC Manager or NSX Manager natively, nor does it enhance lifecycle management across the entire VCF solution—it’s limited to vSphere. This option fails to fully address the requirements.

Option C: Write a PowerCLI script to run on all virtual appliances and force a redirection on port 443This is incorrect. Forcing redirection to port 443 (HTTPS) via a PowerCLI script might enable encrypted communication for some components, but it’s a manual, ad-hoc solution that:

Doesn’t ensuretrustedaccess (no mention of certificate trust).

Doesn’t integrate with a CA for certificate management.

Contradicts lifecycle enhancement, as it requires ongoing manual intervention rather than automation.This approach is not scalable or supported in VCF 5.2 for meeting security requirements.

Option D: Write an Aria Orchestrator Workflow to change the ESXi hosts’ certificates in bulkThis is incorrect. While VMware Aria Orchestrator (formerly vRealize Orchestrator) can automate certificate updates for ESXi hosts, it’s a partial solution that:

Only addresses ESXi hosts, not all management components (e.g., SDDC Manager, NSX).

Doesn’t inherently ensure trust unless tied to a trusted CA (not specified here).

Improves lifecycle management only for ESXi certificates, not the broader VCF stack.This option lacks the holistic scope required by the question and isn’t a native VCF design decision.

Conclusion:Integrating SDDC Manager with a 3rd-party CA (Option A) is the only design decision that fully satisfies all requirements. It leverages VCF 5.2’s built-in certificate management capabilities to ensure trust, encryption, and lifecycle efficiency across the entire solution.

References:

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

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Security Design Considerations)

vSphere 7.0U3 Security Configuration Guide (integrated in VCF 5.2): Certificate Authority Integration