An architect is designing a vSphere environment for a customer based on the following information:
✑ The vSphere cluster will have three hosts only due to budget considerations.
✑ A database cluster (node majority) consisting of three virtual machines will be running on the vSphere cluster.
Which two recommendations can the architect make so that the customer achieves the highest level of application availability while taking into consideration operational resiliency? (Choose two.)
Creating VM-VM anti-affinity rules ensures that the virtual machines in the database cluster are spread across different hosts, thus avoiding a single point of failure and ensuring higher availability. Setting das.respectvmvmantiaffinityrules to false will allow vSphere HA to restart a virtual machine on a host that already has one of the database cluster nodes if necessary, ensuring that operational resiliency is maintained even in failover scenarios. Together, these recommendations balance the need for both application availability and operational flexibility.
Changing to A and B A. Create VM-VM anti-affinity rules - A VM-VM affinity rule specifies whether selected individual virtual machines should run on the same host or be kept on separate hosts. https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/7.0/com.vmware.vsphere.resmgmt.doc/GUID-94FCC204-115A-4918-9533-BFC588338ECB.html B. Set das.respectvmvmantiaffinityrules to false - Determines if vSphere HA enforces VM-VM anti-affinity rules. The default value is "true" and rules are enforced even if vSphere DRS is not enabled. In this case, vSphere HA does not fail over a virtual machine if doing so violates a rule So if we set this to false. HA will not respect the VM-VM anti-affinity rules in place and restart the machine on a host already occupied by one of the DB nodes. I guess this is where operational resiliency in the question comes into play.
A,B sounds better: das.respectvmvmantiaffinityrules Determines if vSphere HA enforces VM-VM anti-affinity rules. The default value is "true" and rules are enforced even if vSphere DRS is not enabled. In this case, vSphere HA does not fail over a virtual machine if doing so violates a rule, but it issues an event reporting there are insufficient resources to perform the failover. This option can also be set to "false", whereby the rules are not enforced.
It's A and B. A. You need an Anti-Affinity rule to keep all VMs separated and comply with Node Majority cluster service requirement. B. By letting the cluster ignore the Anti-Affinity rule under certain circumstances ((like putting a Host into Maintenance Mode), we are allowing a VM to be migrated to another Host, thus avoiding an availability impact.
A & B will be the correct answer. see for more information the post of nemisis95
I'd say A and B
AB would be contradiction. Correct answer is BC
Why would you B set respectVMVMantiaffinityrules to false if you only have C VM-Host anti-affinity rules? That makes no sense at all.
A : This will ensure the datastore cluster’s nodes will run on different hosts, avoiding a SPOF B : This will get around the VM-VM anti-affinity, and will force vSphere HA to restart a lost database cluster’s node even if there is not enough hosts available. C : It could be a manual method to force a database server to run on each host, but it is not very flexible. D : if DRS is running, the VM-VM anti-affinity rule will not allow to move a VM anyway, and the host will not enter in maintenance. E: won’t help in anything
C & D for me. C. Create VM-Host anti-affinity rules D. Disable vSphere HA during maintenance
This would only cater for planned maintenance by disabling ha. However for unplanned maintenance in HA, A and B would be more suitable