Most Recent VMware 2V0-13.24 Exam Dumps

VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) offers two primary architectural models: Standard Architecture (separate Management and Workload Domains) and Consolidated Architecture (combined management and workloads in a single domain). The requirement to minimize management tool instances suggests centralizing management where possible, while the diverse network infrastructure (40Gb, 10Gb, 100Mb) and workload performance needs influence the design. Let's evaluate each option:

Option A: Headquarters will have a private cloud based on the VCF Consolidated Architecture

The Consolidated Architecture combines management and workload components in one domain, suitable for smaller deployments with limited resources. However, headquarters has a brand-new datacenter with 40Gb networking, indicating a high-capacity environment likely intended as the central hub. The VCF 5.2 Architectural Guide recommends the Standard Architecture for larger, scalable deployments with robust infrastructure, as it separates management for better isolation and scalability, conflicting with Consolidated Architecture here.

Option B: Larger stores will have a private cloud based on the VCF Consolidated Architecture

Larger stores have 10Gb infrastructure and secure machine rooms, suggesting moderate capacity. While Consolidated Architecture could work, it requires a full VCF stack (SDDC Manager, vCenter, NSX) per site, increasing management instances. This contradicts the requirement to minimize management tools, as each store would need its own management stack.

Option C: Smaller stores will have remote clusters deployed from the HQ VCF instance

Smaller stores with 100Mb infrastructure are resource-constrained. Deploying remote clusters (e.g., stretched or additional clusters) managed by the HQ VCF instance leverages centralized SDDC Manager and vCenter, minimizing management tools. The VCF 5.2 Administration Guide supports remote cluster deployment from a central VCF instance, ensuring performance via local workload placement while reducing administrative overhead---ideal for the pilot phase.

Option D: Smaller stores will have remote clusters deployed from the geographically closest Larger store VCF instance

This assumes larger stores host their own VCF instances, which increases management complexity (multiple SDDC Managers). The requirement to minimize management tools favors a single HQ-managed instance over distributed management from larger stores, making this less optimal.

Option E: Headquarters will have a private cloud based on the VCF Standard Architecture

The Standard Architecture deploys a dedicated Management Domain at HQ (with 40Gb infrastructure) and allows workload domains or remote clusters to be managed centrally. This aligns with minimizing management instances (one SDDC Manager, one vCenter) while supporting high-performance workloads across all locations, per the VCF 5.2 Architectural Guide. It's the best fit for HQ's role as the central hub.

Option F: Larger stores will have workload domains deployed from the HQ VCF instance

Deploying workload domains for larger stores from HQ's VCF instance uses the Standard Architecture's flexibility to manage multiple domains centrally. With 10Gb infrastructure, larger stores can host workloads efficiently under HQ's SDDC Manager, avoiding separate VCF instances and meeting the management minimization requirement without compromising performance.

Conclusion:

E: Standard Architecture at HQ provides a scalable, centralized management foundation.

F: Workload domains for larger stores from HQ reduce management overhead.

C: Remote clusters for smaller stores from HQ support the pilot with minimal tools.

This trio balances centralized management with performance across varied infrastructure.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide (docs.vmware.com): Section on Standard vs. Consolidated Architecture.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide (docs.vmware.com): Remote Cluster and Workload Domain Deployment.

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 per instance (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:

Option C (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.

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)

These requirements focus on capacity and growth, key aspects of the Performance design quality in VCF, which ensures the solution meets compute, storage, and network demands over time. Availability (A) addresses uptime, Recoverability (C) data restoration, and Manageability (D) operational ease---none directly tie to capacity planning. Performance in VCF 5.2 includes sizing for current and future workloads, making B the correct classification.

Physical design in VCF focuses on hardware specifications, not policies or logical configurations. Option D, 'Dual 10Gb or faster storage network adapters,' and Option E, 'Two vSAN OSA disk groups with four 4TB Samsung SSDs,' specify physical components (NICs, drives) critical to vSAN performance and redundancy in the physical layer. Option A (storage policy) is logical, defined in vSphere. Option B (cache drives) and C (encryption capability) are also physical but less specific without vendor/model details compared to E, and encryption is often a feature, not a standalone decision. D and E are the clearest physical design elements per VCF 5.2 vSAN OSA requirements.

The requirements demand per-component certificates with 6-month validity and minimal admin effort, while constraints limit skills and budget. Option D, 'Use and configure integration with Microsoft Certificate Authority (CA),' meets all criteria: Microsoft CA (integrated via SDDC Manager in VCF 5.2) supports individual certificates per component (e.g., vCenter, NSX), allows short validity periods, automates renewal (reducing effort), and leverages existing infrastructure (low cost, skill-friendly). Option A (wildcard certificates) violates per-component needs. Option B (DigiCert) incurs higher costs and requires more skill. Option C (disabling SSL) compromises security, failing compliance. Microsoft CA aligns with VCF's certificate management capabilities.