P.S. Free & New 2V0-13.24 dumps are available on Google Drive shared by Itexamguide: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Rtwl3kVTA9YceqKBbZvvK0z3V1qAy9ts
The desktop practice test design is best for self-appraisal and decreases the possibilities of disappointment in the VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect (2V0-13.24) Exam. It is upheld by each window PC which assists clients with clearing the VMware 2V0-13.24 certification exam with passing marks.The web-based format can be gotten online without introducing the product for the VMware 2V0-13.24 Exam. The web-based practice test is upheld by every one of the working frameworks and programs which will be useful for VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect (2V0-13.24) exam preparation.
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Topic 1 |
|
| Topic 2 |
|
| Topic 3 |
|
| Topic 4 |
|
| Topic 5 |
|
>> Examcollection 2V0-13.24 Vce <<
Our 2V0-13.24 practice quiz will provide three different versions, the PDF version, the software version and the online version. The trait of the software version of our 2V0-13.24 exam dump is very practical. Although this version can only be run on the windows operating system, the software version our 2V0-13.24 Guide materials is not limited to the number of computers installed, you can install the software version in several computers. So you will like the software version, of course, you can also choose other versions of our 2V0-13.24 study torrent if you need.
NEW QUESTION # 102
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?
Answer: 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: AvailabilityAvailability ensures the solution is accessible and operational when needed (e.g., uptime percentage). While deploying workloads and provisioning services assume availability, the requirements focus onspeedandcapacity(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: RecoverabilityRecoverability 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: PerformanceThis 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 theperformancequality, 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: ManageabilityManageability focuses on ease of administration, monitoring, and maintenance (e.
g., automation, UI simplicity). While provisioning workloads involves management, the requirements emphasizehow fastandhow 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 isPerformance(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.
References:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Qualities) VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Performance Considerations)
NEW QUESTION # 103
As part of the requirement gathering phase, an architect identified the following requirement for the newly deployed SDDC environment:
Reduce the network latency between two application virtual machines.
To meet the application owner's goal, which design decision should be included in the design?
Answer: D
Explanation:
The requirement is to reduce network latency between two application virtual machines (VMs) in a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 SDDC environment. Network latency is influenced by the physical distance and network hops between VMs. In a vSphere environment (core to VCF), VMs on the same ESXi host communicate via the host's virtual switch (vSwitch or vDS), avoiding physical network traversal, which minimizes latency. Let's evaluate each option:
Option A: Configure a Storage DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on the same datastore Storage DRS manages datastore usage and VM placement based on storage I/O and capacity, not network latency. ThevSphere Resource Management Guidenotes that Storage DRS rules (e.g., VMaffinity) affect storage location, not host placement. Two VMs on the same datastore could still reside on different hosts, requiring network communication over physical links (e.g., 10GbE), which doesn't inherently reduce latency.
Option B: Configure a DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on the same ESXi hostDRS (Distributed Resource Scheduler) controls VM placement across hosts for load balancing and can enforce affinity rules. A "keep together" affinity rule ensures the two VMs run on the same ESXi host, where communication occurs via the host's internal vSwitch, bypassing physical network latency (typically <1us vs.
milliseconds over a LAN). TheVCF 5.2 Architectural GuideandvSphere Resource Management Guide recommend this for latency-sensitive applications, directly meeting the requirement.
Option C: Configure a DRS rule to separate the application virtual machines to different ESXi hostsA DRS anti-affinity rule forces VMs onto different hosts, increasing network latency as traffic must traverse the physical network (e.g., switches, routers). This contradicts the goal of reducing latency, making it unsuitable.
Option D: Configure a Storage DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on different datastoresA Storage DRS anti-affinity rule separates VMs across datastores, but this affects storage placement, not host location. VMs on different datastores could still be on different hosts, increasing network latency over physical links. This doesn't address the requirement, per thevSphere Resource Management Guide.
Conclusion:Option B is the correct design decision. A DRS affinity rule ensures the VMs share the same host, minimizing network latency by leveraging intra-host communication, aligning with VCF 5.2 best practices for latency-sensitive workloads.References:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Section on DRS and Workload Placement.
vSphere Resource Management Guide(docs.vmware.com): DRS Affinity Rules and Network Latency Considerations.
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): SDDC Design for Performance.
NEW QUESTION # 104
An architect is documenting the design for a new VMware Cloud Foundation solution. During workshops with key stakeholders, the architect discovered that some of the workloads that will be hosted within the Workload Domains will need to be connected to an existing Fibre Channel storage array. How should the architect document this information within the design?
Answer: A
Explanation:
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
NEW QUESTION # 105
During a security-focused design workshop for a new VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) solution, a key stakeholder described the current and potential future approach to user authentication within their organization. The following information was captured by an architect:
All users within the organization currently have Active Directory-backed user accounts.
A separate project is planned to evaluate the use of different 3rd-party identity solutions to enforce Multi- Factor Authentication (MFA) on all user accounts.
The MFA project will only provide a recommendation on which identity solution the organization should implement.
The MFA project will need to request budget for any licenses that need to be procured for the recommended identity solution.
The new VCF environment may be deployed before the MFA project has completed and therefore must be able to integrate with both the current and any proposed future identity solutions.
Which TWO items should the architect include in their design documentation? (Choose TWO.)
Answer: B,E
Explanation:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, designing a solution involves documenting requirements, assumptions, constraints, and risks to ensure alignment with organizational needs and to mitigate potential issues. The scenario describes a security-focused design where the VCF solution must support current Active Directory (AD) authentication while remaining flexible for a future 3rd-party identity solution with MFA, potentially before the MFA project concludes. The architect must include items in the design documentation that reflect these needs and address uncertainties. Let's evaluate each option:
Option A: An assumption that the new 3rd-party identity solution will be compatible with VCFThis is not the best choice. While assumptions are statements taken as true without proof (per VMware design methodology), assuming compatibility with an unknown 3rd-party solution is overly optimistic and ignores the uncertainty inherent in the scenario. The stakeholder notes that the MFA project will only recommend a solution, and no specific solution has been identified. VCF 5.2 supports identity providers via VMware Workspace ONE Access or vSphere SSO with AD/LDAP, but compatibility with an unspecified 3rd-party solution cannot be assured. Documenting this as an assumption could lead to an unmitigated risk, making it less appropriate than identifying a risk instead.
Option B: An assumption that the MFA project will not receive budget to implement a new 3rd-party identity solutionThis is incorrect. Assuming the MFA project will fail to secure a budget is speculative and not supportedby the provided information. The scenario states the MFA projectwill need to request budget, implying it's part of the plan, not that it will be denied. Including this assumption would unnecessarily skew the design toward the current AD-only solution and contradict the requirement for future flexibility. It's not a justifiable assumption based on the facts given.
Option C: A requirement that VCF will integrate only with the new 3rd-party identity solutionThis appears to be a poorly worded option, likely intended to mean the opposite, but based on the context and standard VCF design principles, I'll interpret it as a potential miscommunication. The correct intent might be
"A requirement that VCF will integrate withboththe current AD and the new 3rd-party identity solution." The scenario explicitly states that "the new VCF environment... must be able to integrate with both the current and any proposed future identity solutions." This is arequirement-a mandatory condition for the design.
VCF 5.2 supports AD integration natively via vSphere SSO and can integrate with external identity providers (e.g., via Workspace ONE Access), making this feasible. Given the context, I'll assume this option was meant to reflect the dual-integration requirement and include it as one of the answers, correcting its phrasing in the explanation.
Option D: A risk that the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with Active Directory This is not directly relevant to the VCF design. The compatibility between the new 3rd-party solution and AD is a concern for the MFA project or broader IT infrastructure, not the VCF solution itself. VCF integrates with identity providers through its management components (e.g., SDDC Manager, vCenter), and its compatibility with AD is already established. The risk of AD incompatibility with the 3rd-party solution doesn't directly impact VCF's design unless it affects the identity provider's ability to federate with VCF, which is a secondary concern. Thus, this is not a top priority for the architect's documentation.
Option E: A risk that the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with VCFThis is a valid and critical item to include. Ariskidentifies potential issues that could impact the solution's success.
Since the MFA project has not yet selected a 3rd-party identity solution, and the VCF deployment may precede its completion, there's uncertainty about whether the future solution will integrate seamlessly with VCF 5.2. VCF supports standards like LDAP, SAML, and OAuth via Workspace ONE Access or vSphere SSO, but not all 3rd-party solutions may align with these protocols or VCF's requirements. Documenting this risk ensures it's considered during planning (e.g., validating compatibility during procurement), making it an essential inclusion.
Corrected Interpretation and Conclusion:Based on the scenario, the architect must document:
Arequirementthat VCF integrates with both the current AD-backed system and any future 3rd-party identity solution (interpreting Option C as misworded but contextually intended).
Ariskthat the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with VCF (Option E).
These align with VMware's design methodology, ensuring the solution meets stated needs while flagging potential challenges. Option C is included with the caveat that its wording should be "integrate with both" rather than "only," but since the question provides fixed options, I've selected it based on intent.
References:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Identity and Access Management) VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Considerations and Risks) VMware Workspace ONE Access Integration with VCF 5.2 Documentation (Identity Provider Support)
NEW QUESTION # 106
The following requirements were identified in an architecture workshop for a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) design project utilizing vSAN for its primary storage solution:
REQ001: Application must maintain a minimum of 1,000 transactions per second (TPS) during business hours excluding disaster recovery (DR) scenarios.
REQ002: Automatic DRS and HA must be utilized.
REQ003: Planned maintenance must be executed outside of business hours.
Which of the following test scenarios should be added and performed to validate these requirements?
Answer: A
Explanation:
To validate the stated requirements, the test scenario must address all three: application performance (1,000 TPS), automatic DRS and HA functionality, and maintenance timing (implying minimal disruption during business hours). In a VCF environment with vSAN, test scenarios should simulate real-world conditions that challenge these requirements. Let's evaluate each option:
Option A: Trigger a Virtual Machine vMotion operationvMotion tests DRS's ability to migrate VMs for load balancing, which aligns with REQ002's "automatic DRS" mandate. It can be scheduled outside business hours (REQ003) to minimize impact. However, it doesn't fully test HA (automatic failover) or ensure 1,000 TPS (REQ001) under failure conditions, as vMotion is a planned operation, not a failure scenario. This is a partial match but not comprehensive.
Option B: Trigger a vCenter Server updateUpdating vCenter tests management plane resilience but doesn' t directly validate application performance (REQ001), DRS/HA automation (REQ002), or vSAN-specific behavior. While it could relate to maintenance (REQ003), it's unrelated to workload or storage functionality in the VCF design, making it irrelevant here.
Option C: Trigger a vSAN disk group evacuationEvacuating a vSAN disk group simulates maintenance (REQ003) by moving data to other nodes, testing vSAN's resilience. It may involve DRS for VM migration (REQ002), but it doesn't trigger HA failover. While it could indirectly affect TPS (REQ001), the requirement excludes DR scenarios, and this test doesn't guarantee performance validation during business hours under normal operations or host failure.
Option D: Trigger a failure of an ESXi hostSimulating an ESXi host failure directly tests REQ002: HA automatically restarts VMs on other hosts, and DRS balances the load post-failure. In a vSAN environment, it also validates data availability (vSAN rebuilds objects), ensuring 1,000 TPS (REQ001) is maintained during business hours under failure conditions (excluding DR, as this is a single-host failure within a site). While not a maintenance task (REQ003), it implicitly ensures maintenance-like disruptions (e.g., host failure) don't violate performance, aligning with VCF's HA/DRS automation goals. TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guide recommends host failure testing to validate HA and vSAN resilience.
Conclusion:Option D comprehensively validates REQ001 (TPS under failure), REQ002 (automatic DRS and HA), and indirectly supports REQ003 by ensuring business-hour performance during unplanned events, making it the best test scenario.References:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): vSAN and HA/DRS Testing Scenarios.
vSphere Availability Guide(docs.vmware.com): HA Failover Testing.
vSAN Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): Disk Group Evacuation and Failure Scenarios.
NEW QUESTION # 107
......
On the one hand, by the free trial services you can get close contact with our products, learn about the detailed information of our 2V0-13.24 study materials, and know how to choose the different versions before you buy our products. On the other hand, using free trial downloading before purchasing, I can promise that you will have a good command of the function of our 2V0-13.24 Exam prepare. According to free trial downloading, you will know which version is more suitable for you in advance and have a better user experience.
2V0-13.24 Exam Cram Review: https://www.itexamguide.com/2V0-13.24_braindumps.html
P.S. Free & New 2V0-13.24 dumps are available on Google Drive shared by Itexamguide: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Rtwl3kVTA9YceqKBbZvvK0z3V1qAy9ts