An architect decides to separate virtual desktops and application servers into separate vSphere clusters to meet security and management requirements.
What are two implications of this design decision? (Choose two.)
An architect decides to separate virtual desktops and application servers into separate vSphere clusters to meet security and management requirements.
What are two implications of this design decision? (Choose two.)
Separating virtual desktops and application servers into separate vSphere clusters will lead to an increase in management overhead because there are now multiple clusters to manage instead of just one. Additionally, managing separate clusters often results in additional licensing and cost requirements for both clusters. For example, you may need more licenses for vSphere and potentially additional hardware, which translates into increased costs.
A. There will be an increase in management overhead. E. There will be additional licensing and cost requirements for both clusters. A. There will be an increase in management overhead. - multiple clusters to manage B. Identical hardware must be procured for all hosts. - seperate clusters so hardware can be very different C. There will be a reduction in performance. - there would be a performance increase in segregation D. The patching cycles will affect both clusters at the same time. - this is not true. E. There will be additional licensing and cost requirements for both clusters. - process of elimination leaves this
In my opinion, process of elimination makes C a candidate, cause you don't have extra licencing costs creating further vSphere clusters, as licensing is for vSphere and vCenter that is already licensed. Could happen a reduction in performance. Let's suppose that you have an initial 4 ESXi cluster and you divide it in 2 clusters with 2 ESXi each for redundancy. Could be that your application VMs need more resources than the 2 ESXi have available and the VDI VMs only need 1 ESXi resources. Just my process of elimination.
I get your point of view, but I believe the C could be an option if it were written differently: "There COULD be a reduction in performance".
The same for E: "There COULD be additional licensing and cost requirements for both clusters".
Good observation. I think C trumps E. So A and C.
Correct Answer : A, E
My thoughts about about this question. Firs of all, it is terribly written... It is not clear to me if they are reusing the existing environment or if they consider the option of adding new hosts. In any case A is correct. Now C or E? 1) In case of reusing the existing cluster and separate it into 2 clusters >> C. There will be a reduction in performance 2) In case of adding new hosts >> E. There will be additional licensing and cost requirements for both clusters. D and C are out of the question.
Am argument could be made for both C and E. My thoughts C. There will be a reduction in performance. Are they decreasing the current vSphere cluster by splitting the current host count into 2? If so, yes, it will decrease performance by minimizing resources. E. There will be additional licensing and cost requirements for both clusters. The hey bit in this option is "for both clusters." Let's say they provision a new batch of hardware for the new cluster, why would there be be additional licensing and cost requirements for the original cluster? I think I like A and C. BUT, it really could go either way. Badly worded C and E
E seems wrong to me, as it states adding cost to both clusters. Adding hosts could add license and hardware expense for the new hosts only not for the existing one.
Thinking about this a bit longer... A is obvious, we don't need to talk about - CORRECT B No, simply no - FALSE C No, cluster size does not impact VM performance - FALSE E is difficult. And FALSE. If you think of Horizon for a second: It already includes vSphere Desktop. So if you split the cluster, you'll need vSphere Standard licenses for the cluster hosting the application servers. On the other hand you weren't allowed to operate the application servers on a vSphere Desktop licensed single cluster. Thinking further gives the clue that you split an existing cluster: So the vSphere Standard licenses must already be there, also a vCenter. You don't need additional licenses then - given the fact that both clusters are managed by the same vCenter. But now...Horizon is dependent on vCenter Server. So if you update... D The patching will AFFECT both clusters at the same time - CORRECT So it's A and D.
A & E ?
I thnik A & C
How? can you explain it for A & C.
yaziciali, you seem to get a lot of wrong answers in here.
A and E Why should you have to patch both clusters at the same time? Why should the host hardware be identical? Why would separation into clusters mean a reduction in Performance?
A. There will be an increase in management overhead. - CORRECT: multiple clusters to manage B. Identical hardware must be procured for all hosts. - NO: seperate clusters so hardware can be different C. There will be a reduction in performance. - CORRECT: single cluster with (example) 10 ESXi splitted in 2 Clusters with 7 and 3 ESXi cannot be better in performance. D. The patching cycles will affect both clusters at the same time. - NO: this is not true. E. There will be additional licensing and cost requirements for both clusters. - NO: why? is not needed additional license for number of clusters, only for number of ESXi (CPU) and\or vCenter Instances.
Why C? If the question would state it was a vSAN cluster, there was a chance for performance reduction. But a VM won't perform better in a 10 host cluster than on a single host.
nowhere is vsan named
everyone agrees with A but why discard E? Horizon have different type of licensing than vsphere. Horizon delivery ESXi and vCenter, so in an environment when you mix desktop and server you can work (not recommended) But if you separate, you need vsphere for the other cluster
You made a good point regarding E. But, I am pretty sure that in order to remain in compliance with the licensing models, they must already have two licenses (one for Horizon and another for vSphere) in their environment. So, even though they separate the existing infrastructure into two clusters, licensing do not change. In the end, I would choose A and C
also for me is A&C the correct answer.
Anwsers A&E are correct. A >> Yes. More clusters, more things to manage, so more overhead B >> No. The hardware can be different, and even better adapted regarding the needs of each type of workload C >> No. It may have an impact, if we started from an existing cluster, and we split it into 2 parts. But nothing says here it is the case. D >> No. It is even the opposite, they can me be managed separately E >> Yes. With 2 clusters instead of 1, we may need additional hosts, and then additional licences. We may also have impacts on guest OS licences, or vSAN licences if we use it.
Answer : A, E
Moving from 1 cluster to 2 clusters will have an impact on the number of required ESXi host per cluster (N+1), therefore generating additional costs for both hardware and ESXi licenses. So A & E to my opinion
A - more clusters to manage E - VDI and APPs cluster can have different requirements resulting in different cost and licensing models.
A and E will be the correct answers. See answer nemisis95
My guess: A and D.
Why would you assume "D. The patching cycles" would remain the same if they split the environment into 2 clusters?
Misstyped: C instead of D.