ZertFragen ist eine Website, die IT-Fachleuten Informationsressourcen zur VMware 2V0-13.24 IT-Zertifizierungsprüfung bietet. Die Feedbacks von vielen Kunden haben sich bewiesen, dass ZertFragen die beste Website in Bezug auf die Prüfungsvorbereitung ist. Die Produkte von ZertFragen sind zuverlässige Prüfungsunterlagen. Die VMware 2V0-13.24 Prüfungsfragen und Antworten von ZertFragen sind sehr genau. Unsere erfahrungsreichen IT-Fachleute verbessern immer noch die Qualität unserer VMware 2V0-13.24 Schulungsunterlagen.
Wir wissen, wie bedeutend die VMware 2V0-13.24 Prüfung für die in der IT-Branche angestellte Leute ist. Deshalb entwickeln wir die Prüfungssoftware für VMware 2V0-13.24, die Ihnen große Hilfe leisten können. Die Prüfungsunterlagen, die Sie brauchen, haben unser Team schon gesammelt. Außerdem haben wir die Unterlagen wissenschaftlich analysiert und geordnet. Wir tun dies alles, um Ihr Stress und Belastung der Vorbereitung auf VMware 2V0-13.24 zu erleichtern.
>> 2V0-13.24 Schulungsunterlagen <<
Unser ZertFragen ist international ganz berühmt. Die Anwendbarkeit von den Schulungsunterlagen ist sehr groß. Sie werden von den IT-Experten nach ihren Kenntnissen und Erfahrungen bearbeitet. Die Feedbacks von den Kandidaten haben sich gezeigt, dass unsere Prüdukte eher von guter Qualität sind. Wenn Sie einer der IT-Kandidaten sind, sollen Sie die Schulungsunterlagen zur VMware 2V0-13.24 Zertifizierungsprüfung von ZertFragen ohne Zweifel wählen.
| Thema | Einzelheiten |
|---|---|
| Thema 1 |
|
| Thema 2 |
|
| Thema 3 |
|
| Thema 4 |
|
| Thema 5 |
|
87. Frage
The following requirements were identified in an architecture workshop for a virtual infrastructure design project.
REQ001: All virtual machines must satisfy the Recovery Point Objective (RPO) of fifteen (15) minutes or less in a disaster recovery (DR) situation REQ002: Service level availability must satisfy 99.999% measured yearly.
Which two test cases will validate these requirements?
Antwort: B,C
88. Frage
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 Automationand Operations products within the VCF solution, which three design decisions should the architect include based on this information?
(Choose three.)
Antwort: C,D,E
Begründung:
In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, Cloud Automation (e.g., Aria Automation) and Operations (e.g., Aria Operations) products rely on identity management for authentication. The customer's requirements- corporate directory authentication, Active/Standby across two sites, disaster recovery (DR), network zoning, slow firewall processes, and a 3-month deployment timeline-shape the design decisions. The architect must ensure authentication works efficiently across sites while meeting the timeline and DR needs. Let's evaluate:
Key Constraints and Context:
Authentication: All users/administrators use the corporate directory (e.g., Active Directory in the corporate zone).
Deployment: Active/Standby across two sites, with management apps in a separate tooling zone behind firewalls.
DR: Management apps must recover to the standby site.
Firewall Delays: 8-week minimum per rule, but deployment must occur within 12 weeks (3 months).
Identity Broker: In VCF, VMware Workspace ONE Access (or similar) acts as an identity broker, bridging VCF components with external directories (e.g., AD via LDAP/S).
Evaluation of Options:
Option A: The Cloud Automation and Operations products will be reconfigured to integrate with the Identity Broker solution instance at the standby site in case of a Disaster Recovery incident This implies a single Identity Broker at the primary site, with reconfiguration to a standby instance post-DR.
Reconfiguring products (e.g., updating SSO endpoints) during DR adds complexity and downtime, contradicting the Active/Standby goal of seamless failover. It's feasible but not optimal given the need for continuous operation and the 3-month timeline.
Option B: The Identity Broker solution will be deployed at both the primary and standby site This is correct. Deploying Workspace ONE Access (or equivalent) at both sites supports Active/Standby by ensuring authentication availability at the primary site and immediate usability at the standby site post-DR. It aligns with VCF's multi-site HA capabilities and avoids reconfiguration delays, addressing the DR requirement efficiently within the timeline.
Option C: The Identity Broker solution will be connected with the corporate directory service for user authentication This is correct. The requirement states all users/administrators authenticate via the corporate directory (in the corporate zone). An Identity Broker (e.g., Workspace ONE Access) connects to AD via LDAP/S, acting as a proxy between the management tooling zone and corporate zone. This satisfies the authentication need and simplifies firewall rules (one broker-to-AD connection vs. multiple app connections), critical given the 8- week delay.
Option D: The Identity Broker solution will be deployed at the primary site and failed over to the standby site in case of a disaster This suggests a single Identity Broker with DR failover. While possible (e.g., via vSphere Replication), it risks authentication downtime during failover, conflicting with Active/Standby continuity. The 8-week firewall rule delay for the standby site's broker connection post-DR also jeopardizes the 3-month timeline and DR readiness, making this less viable than dual-site deployment (B).
Option E: The Cloud Automation and Operations products will be integrated with a single instance of an Identity Broker solution at the primary site This is correct. Integrating Aria products with one Identity Broker instance at the primary site during initial deployment simplifies setup and meets the 3-month timeline. It leverages the broker deployed at the primary site (part of B) for authentication, minimizing firewall rules (one broker vs. multiple apps). Pairing this with a standby instance (B) ensures DR readiness without immediate complexity.
Option F: The Cloud Automation and Operations products will be integrated directly with the corporate directory service This is incorrect. Direct integration requires each product (e.g., Aria Automation, Operations) to connect to AD across the firewall, necessitating multiple rule requests. With an 8-week minimum per rule and several products, this exceeds the 3-month timeline. It also complicates DR, as each app would need re-pointing to a standby AD, violating efficiency and zoning policies.
Conclusion:
The three design decisions are:
B: Identity Broker at both sites ensures Active/Standby and DR readiness.
C: Connecting the broker to the corporate directory fulfills the authentication requirement and simplifies firewall rules.
E: Integrating products with a primary-site broker meets the 3-month deployment goal while leveraging B and C for DR.This trio balances timeline, security, and DR needs in VCF 5.2.
References:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Identity and Access Management) VMware Aria Automation 8.10 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): Authentication Design VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Multi-Site and DR Considerations)
89. Frage
Given a disaster recovery scenario, which design decision is best for ensuring minimal downtime of VCF workloads?
Response:
Antwort: A
90. Frage
What is a primary advantage of deploying VMware Cloud Foundation in a multi-cloud environment?
Response:
Antwort: A
91. Frage
An architect is working with a service provider to design a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) solution that is required to host workloads for multiple tenants. The following requirements were gathered:
Each tenant requires full access to their own vCenter.
Each tenant will utilize and manage their own identity provider for access.
A total of 28 tenants are expected to be onboarded.
Each tenant will have their own independent VCF lifecycle maintenance schedule.
Which VCF architecture option will meet these requirements?
Antwort: C
Begründung:
To determine the appropriate VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) architecture for this scenario, we need to evaluate each option against the provided requirements and the capabilities of VCF 5.2 as outlined in official documentation.
Requirement Analysis:
Each tenant requires full access to their own vCenter:This implies that each tenant needs a dedicated vCenter Server instance for managing their workloads, ensuring isolation and administrative control.
Each tenant will utilize and manage their own identity provider:This requires separate Single Sign-On (SSO) domains or identity sources per tenant, as tenants must integrate their own identity providers (e.g., Active Directory, LDAP) independently.
A total of 28 tenants:The solution must scale to support 28 isolated environments.
Independent VCF lifecycle maintenance schedule:Each tenant's environment must support its own lifecycle management (e.g., upgrades, patches) without impacting others, implying separate VCF instances or fully isolated workload domains.
VCF Architecture Models Overview (Based on VCF 5.2 Documentation):
Standard Architecture Model:A single VCF instance with one vCenter Server managing all workload domains under a single SSO domain. Additional workload domains share the same vCenter and SSO infrastructure.
Consolidated Architecture Model:A single VCF instance where the management domain and workload domains are managed by one vCenter Server, but workload domains can be isolated at the cluster level.
Multiple VCF Instances:Separate VCF deployments, each with its own management domain, vCenter Server, and SSO domain, enabling full isolation and independent lifecycle management.
Option Analysis:
A: A single VCF instance consolidated architecture model with 28 tenant clusters:In a consolidated architecture, a single vCenter Server manages the management domain and all workload clusters. While 28 tenant clusters could be created, all would share the same vCenter and SSO domain. This violates the requirements for each tenant having their own vCenter and managing their own identity provider, as a single SSO domain cannot support 28 independent identity providers. Additionally, lifecycle management would be tied to the single VCF instance, conflicting with the independent maintenance schedule requirement. This option does not meet the requirements.
B: A single VCF instance standard architecture model and 28 isolated SSO domains:In a standard architecture, a single VCF instance includes one vCenter Server and one SSO domain for all workload domains. While workload domains can be created for isolation, VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 does not support multiple isolated SSO domains within a single vCenter instance. The vSphere SSO architecture allows only one SSO domain per vCenter Server. Even with creative configurations (e.g., identity federation), managing 28 independent identity providers within one SSO domain is impractical and unsupported.
Furthermore, all workload domains share the same lifecycle schedule under one VCF instance, failing the independent maintenance requirement. This option is not viable.
C: Two VCF instances consolidated architecture model with 14 tenant clusters each:With two VCF instances, each instance has its own management domain, vCenter Server, and SSO domain. Each instance operates in a consolidated architecture, where tenant clusters (workload domains) are managed by the instance's vCenter. However, the key here is that each VCF instance can be fully isolated from the other, allowing:
Each tenant cluster to be assigned a dedicated vCenter (via separate workload domains or vSphere clusters with permissions).
Independent SSO domains per instance, with tenant-specific identity providers configured through federation or external identity sources.
Independent lifecycle management, as each VCF instance can be upgraded or patched separately.Splitting 28 tenants into 14 per instance is feasible, as VCF 5.2 supports up to 25 workload domains perinstance (per the VCF Design Guide), and tenant isolation can be achieved at the cluster level with proper permissions and NSX segmentation. This option meets all requirements.
D: Two VCF instances with standard architecture model and 14 isolated SSO domains each:In a standard architecture, each VCF instance has one vCenter Server and one SSO domain. While having two instances provides lifecycle independence, the mention of "14 isolated SSO domains each" is misleading and unsupported. A single vCenter Server (and thus a single VCF instance) supports only one SSO domain. It's possible this intends to mean 14 tenants with isolated identity configurations, but this would still conflict with the single-SSO limitation per instance. Even with two instances, achieving 14 isolated SSO domains per instance is not architecturally possible in VCF 5.2. This option fails the identity provider and vCenter requirements.
Conclusion:OptionC(Two VCF instances consolidated architecture model with 14 tenant clusters each) is the only architecture that satisfies all requirements. It provides tenant isolation via separate clusters, supports dedicated vCenter access through permissions or additional vCenter deployments, allows independent identity providers via SSO federation, scales to 28 tenants across two instances, and ensures independent lifecycle management.
References:
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Design Guide (Section: Architecture Models) VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Workbook (Section: Multi-Tenancy Considerations) VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide (Section: Lifecycle Management) VMware vSphere 8.0 Update 3 Documentation (Section: SSO and Identity Federation)
92. Frage
......
Wenn Sie sich zur VMware 2V0-13.24 Zertifizierungsprüfung anmelden, sollen Sie sofort gute Lernmaterialien oder Prüfungsunterlagen wählen, um sich gut auf die Prüfung vorzubereiten. Denn die VMware 2V0-13.24 Zertifizierungsprüfung ist eine schwierige Prüfung und Sie müssen dafür ausreichende Vorbereitungen haben.
2V0-13.24 PDF Demo: https://www.zertfragen.com/2V0-13.24_prufung.html
