An administrator runs a two-node vSphere cluster, which contains two domain controller virtual machines (VMs). The administrator wants to ensure that VMs run on separate hosts without interfering with normal maintenance operations.
How should the administrator configure Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS)?
To ensure that the two domain controller virtual machines run on separate hosts, the administrator should create a 'Virtual Machines to Virtual Machines' anti-affinity rule. This rule specifies that the selected virtual machines should not run on the same host, achieving the goal of separation. This configuration allows normal maintenance operations to be carried out because the VMs can still move between hosts as needed without being strictly forced to stay on one or constrained by a host-related rule.
D is the correct answer. The key is 'without interfering with normal maintenance operations . Creating a 'must run on' rule or a 'Separate VM rule' (which is essentially a 'must not run on the same host' rule) interferes with maintenance mode.
Very good explanation... thank you got that
the phrasing is poor though. to do it that way you have to create 2 affinity rules, one for each VM-Host pair. not 1 anti-affinity rule like the the answer would suggest.
D is correct,. Other options will not allow the ESXi to go into maintenance mode, so it will interfer with normal maintenance operations.
Read this, it says VM to Host Affinity, DRS will not migrate VM with this rule when it is put in maintenance mode, whether it is should or whether it is a must rule. https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/7.0/com.vmware.vsphere.resmgmt.doc/GUID-793013E2-0976-43B7-9A00-340FA76859D0.html
It's true. You can prove it by setting up a lab here https://labs.hol.vmware.com/ if you don't have access to your own. Create a simple VM Group of HOST 1 and HOST 2 followed by a rule "Should run on hosts in group HOST1" in which DC 1 is in the HOST 1 GROUP and do the same with DC 2. It does work whereas VM to VM will FAIL to migrate a VM when a HOST is shutdown
If you open the link provided it states clearly it should be an VM to VM anti-affinity-rule
From the official VMWare Blueprint Study Guide for VMware vSphere 8.x Professional exam (2V0-21.23) https://www.vmware.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/vmware/en/pdf/certification/vmw-vcp-dcv-8-exam-guide.pdf - Sample Question 9 The answer they give is B - A VM-VM anti-affinity rule & not D - A VM-Host anti-affinity, preferential rule Confused why someone got 500/500 when selecting D though.
The example you linked to (Sample Q9) is not the same scenario. In that example, the VMs can move around, but cannot exist on the same host. In the question here they MUST be able to move onto the same host for a short period of time to allow for maintenance. A VM to VM anti affinity rule will not allow that to happen, therefore it cannot be B, it must be D. That's why the person got 500/500 :-)
D Correct - Passed 500/500 today 1-Mar-23
I believe it is D, as the rule needs to allow for maintenance operations, which means the rule needs to be configured as a "preference" (ie should, rather than must). B will not allow the VMs to move to same host, and C does not apply. So my vote is D.
D, but the answer should be different, create 2 of these vm to host rules, 1 for each VM
Selected Answer: B https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/7.0/com.vmware.vsphere.resmgmt.doc/GUID-7297C302-378F-4AF2-9BD6-6EDB1E0A850A.html
The key is "Should run" in answer D, which would require a rule for each VM. The other answer B would not allow host maintenance mode because there are only two nodes.
Why we dont use "Must run Virtual Machines to Hosts' anti-affinity rule" ? Isnt it will make sure it sure the VM stay on that host a good choice?
It will interfere with maintenance mode.
https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/7.0/com.vmware.vsphere.resmgmt.doc/GUID-793013E2-0976-43B7-9A00-340FA76859D0.html
Maybe D
https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/7.0/com.vmware.vsphere.resmgmt.doc/GUID-94FCC204-115A-4918-9533-BFC588338ECB.html#:~:text=A%20VM%2DVM%20affinity%20rule%20specifies%20whether%20selected%20individual%20virtual%20machines%20should%20run%20on%20the%20same%20host%20or%20be%20kept%20on%20separate%20hosts.
Answer is D
A VM-VM anti-affinity role initially would meet the goal. Also maintenance mode is given (but in maintenance the two DC could meet on the same host). If we had more than 2 nodes we would need a VM-VM anti-affinity AND a VM-Host affinity role to meet the goal. But we only have two hosts so the better solution is the VM-Host affinity because a VM-VM anti-affinity could end up running the two DCs on the same host for LB or whatever reason. With two nodes the placement of the two VMs can be fixed. D is the better answer.
The answer is D. If one creates a 'Virtual Machines to Virtual Machines' AF rule, the host cannot enter maintenance mode. Do the vSphere HOL and try it out.
Im going to go with B since ive seen this question elsewhere and because it specifically makes reference to domain controllers. So that would need to be a VM-VM anti anfinity