2V0-13.24 Practice Test

Explanation: The architect’s design decisions for the VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) solution must align with the hardware specifications, the latency-sensitive nature of the applications, and VMware best practices for performance optimization. To justify the decisions limiting VMs to 10 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM, we need to analyze the ESXi host configuration and the implications of NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Access) architecture, which is critical for latency-sensitive workloads.
ESXi Host Configuration:
CPU:2 sockets, each with 10 cores (20 cores total, or 40 vCPUs with hyper-threading, assuming it’s enabled).
RAM:512 GB total, divided evenly between sockets (256 GB per socket).
Each socket represents a NUMA node, with its own local memory (256 GB) and 10 cores. NUMA nodes are critical because accessing local memory is faster than accessing remote memory across nodes, which introduces latency.
Design Decisions:
Maximum 10 vCPUs per VM:Matches the number of physical cores in one socket (NUMA node).
Maximum 256 GB RAM per VM:Matches the memory capacity of one socket (NUMA node).
Latency-sensitive applications:These workloads (e.g., research applications) require minimal latency, making NUMA optimization a priority.
NUMA Overview (VMware Context):In vSphere (a core component of VCF), each physical CPU socket and its associated memory form a NUMA node. When a VM’s vCPUs and memory fit within a single NUMA node, all memory access is local, reducing latency. If a VM exceeds a NUMA node’s resources (e.g., more vCPUs or memory than one socket provides), it spans multiple nodes, requiring remote memory access, which increases latency—a concern for latency-sensitive applications. VMware’s vSphere NUMA scheduler optimizes VM placement, but the architect can enforce performance by sizing VMs appropriately.
Option Analysis:
A. The maximum resource configuration will ensure efficient use of RAM by sharing memory pages between virtual machines:This refers to Transparent Page Sharing (TPS), a vSphere feature that allows VMs to share identical memory pages, reducing RAM usage. While TPS improves efficiency, it is not directly tied to the decision to cap VMs at 10 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM. Moreover, TPS has minimal impact on latency-sensitive workloads, as it’s a memory-saving mechanism, not a performance optimization for latency. The VMware Cloud Foundation Design Guide and vSphere documentation note that TPS is disabled by default in newer versions (post-vSphere 6.7) due to security concerns, unless explicitly enabled. This justification does not align with the latency focus or the specific resource limits, making it incorrect.
B. The maximum resource configuration will ensure the virtual machines will cross NUMA node boundaries:If VMs were designed to cross NUMA node boundaries (e.g., more than 10 vCPUs or 256 GB RAM), their vCPUs and memory would span both sockets. For example, a VM with 12 vCPUs would use cores from both sockets, and a VM with 300 GB RAM would require memory from both NUMA nodes. This introduces remote memory access, increasing latency due to inter-socket communication over the CPU interconnect (e.g., Intel QPI or AMD Infinity Fabric). For latency-sensitive applications, crossing NUMA boundaries is undesirable, as noted in the VMware vSphere Resource Management Guide. This option contradicts the goal and is incorrect.
C. The maximum resource configuration will ensure the virtual machines will adhere to a single NUMA node boundary:By limiting VMs to 10 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM, the architect ensures each VM fits within one NUMA node (10 cores and 256 GB per socket). This means all vCPUs and memory for a VM are allocated from the same socket, ensuring local memory access and minimizing latency. This is a critical optimization for latencysensitive workloads, as remote memory access is avoided. The vSphere NUMA scheduler will place each VM on a single node, and since the VM’s resource demands do not exceed the node’s capacity, no NUMA spanning occurs. The VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Design Guide and vSphere best practices recommend sizing VMs to fit within a NUMA node for performance-critical applications, making this the correct justification.
D. The maximum resource configuration will ensure each virtual machine will exclusively consume a whole CPU socket:While 10 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM match the resources of one socket, this option implies exclusive consumption, meaning no other VM could use that socket. In vSphere, multiple VMs can share a NUMA node as long as resources are available (e.g., two VMs with 5 vCPUs and 128 GB RAM each could coexist on one socket). The architect’s decision does not mandate exclusivity but rather ensures VMs fit within a node’s boundaries. Exclusivity would limit scalability (e.g., only two VMs per host), which isn’t implied by the design or required by the scenario. This option overstates the intent and is incorrect.
Conclusion: The architect should record thatthe maximum resource configuration will ensure the virtual machines will adhere to a single NUMA node boundary (C). This justification aligns with the hardware specs, optimizes for latency-sensitive workloads by avoiding remote memory access, and leverages VMware’s NUMA-aware scheduling for performance.

Explanation: In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, thephysical designspecifies 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 areDD02 (B)andDD03 (C). They specify the vSAN OSA disk group configuration—capacity and cache drives—directly shaping the physical infrastructure of the VCF hosts.

Explanation: The task involves adding four vSAN ESA (Express Storage Architecture) ready nodes to an existing VCF 5.2 deployment for application workloads. The current setup includes a vSAN-based Management Domain and a workload domain (A) using iSCSI storage. In VCF, workload domains are logical units with consistent storage and lifecycle management via vSphere Lifecycle Manager (vLCM). Let’s analyze each option:
Option A: Commission the four new nodes into the existing workload domain A clusterWorkload domain A uses iSCSI storage, while the new nodes are vSAN ESA ready. VCF 5.2 doesn’t support mixing principal storage types (e.g., iSCSI and vSAN) within a single cluster, as per theVCF 5.2 Architectural Guide. Commissioning vSAN nodes into an iSCSI cluster would require converting the entire cluster to vSAN, which isn’t feasible with existing workloads and violates storage consistency, making this impractical.
Option B: Create a new vLCM image workload domain with the four new nodesThis phrasing is ambiguous. vLCM manages ESXi images and baselines, but “vLCM image workload domain” isn’t a standard VCF term. It might imply a new workload domain with a custom vLCM image,but lacks clarity compared to standard options (C, D). TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guideuses “baseline” or “image-based” distinctly, so this is less precise.
Option C: Create a new vLCM baseline cluster in the existing workload domain with the four new nodesAdding a new cluster to an existing workload domain is possible in VCF, but clusters within a domain must share the same principal storage (iSCSI in workload domain A). TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guidestates that vSAN ESA requires a dedicated cluster and can’t coexist with iSCSI in the same domain configuration, rendering this option invalid.
Option D: Create a new vLCM baseline workload domain with the four new nodesA new workload domain with vSAN ESA as the principal storage aligns with VCF 5.2 design principles. vLCM baselines ensure consistent ESXi versioning and firmware for the new nodes. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guiderecommends separate workload domains for different storage types or workload purposes (e.g., application capacity). This leverages the vSAN ESA nodes effectively, isolates them from the iSCSI-based domain A, and supports application workloads seamlessly.
Conclusion: Option D is the best recommendation, creating a new vSAN ESA-based workload domain managed by vLCM, meeting capacity needs while adhering to VCF 5.2 storage and domain consistency rules.