VMware 2V0-13.24 Dumps

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, designing a solution involves documenting requirements, assumptions, constraints, and risks to ensure alignment with organizational needs and to mitigate potential issues. The scenario describes a security-focused design where the VCF solution must support current Active Directory (AD) authentication while remaining flexible for a future 3rd-party identity solution with MFA, potentially before the MFA project concludes. The architect must include items in the design documentation that reflect these needs and address uncertainties. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: An assumption that the new 3rd-party identity solution will be compatible with VCFThis is not the best choice. While assumptions are statements taken as true without proof (per VMware design methodology), assuming compatibility with an unknown 3rd-party solution is overly optimistic and ignores the uncertainty inherent in the scenario. The stakeholder notes that the MFA project will only recommend a solution, and no specific solution has been identified. VCF 5.2 supports identity providers via VMware Workspace ONE Access or vSphere SSO with AD/LDAP, but compatibility with an unspecified 3rd-party solution cannot be assured. Documenting this as an assumption could lead to an unmitigated risk, making it less appropriate than identifying a risk instead.

Option B: An assumption that the MFA project will not receive budget to implement a new 3rd-party identity solutionThis is incorrect. Assuming the MFA project will fail to secure a budget is speculative and not supportedby the provided information. The scenario states the MFA projectwill need to request budget, implying it’s part of the plan, not that it will be denied. Including this assumption would unnecessarily skew the design toward the current AD-only solution and contradict the requirement for future flexibility. It’s not a justifiable assumption based on the facts given.

Option C: A requirement that VCF will integrate only with the new 3rd-party identity solutionThis appears to be a poorly worded option, likely intended to mean the opposite, but based on the context and standard VCF design principles, I’ll interpret it as a potential miscommunication. The correct intent might be “A requirement that VCF will integrate withboththe current AD and the new 3rd-party identity solution.” The scenario explicitly states that “the new VCF environment… must be able to integrate with both the current and any proposed future identity solutions.” This is arequirement—a mandatory condition for the design. VCF 5.2 supports AD integration natively via vSphere SSO and can integrate with external identity providers (e.g., via Workspace ONE Access), making this feasible. Given the context, I’ll assume this option was meant to reflect the dual-integration requirement and include it as one of the answers, correcting its phrasing in the explanation.

Option D: A risk that the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with Active DirectoryThis is not directly relevant to the VCF design. The compatibility between the new 3rd-party solution and AD is a concern for the MFA project or broader IT infrastructure, not the VCF solution itself. VCF integrates with identity providers through its management components (e.g., SDDC Manager, vCenter), and its compatibility with AD is already established. The risk of AD incompatibility with the 3rd-party solution doesn’t directly impact VCF’s design unless it affects the identity provider’s ability to federate with VCF, which is a secondary concern. Thus, this is not a top priority for the architect’s documentation.

Option E: A risk that the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with VCFThis is a valid and critical item to include. Ariskidentifies potential issues that could impact the solution’s success. Since the MFA project has not yet selected a 3rd-party identity solution, and the VCF deployment may precede its completion, there’s uncertainty about whether the future solution will integrate seamlessly with VCF 5.2. VCF supports standards like LDAP, SAML, and OAuth via Workspace ONE Access or vSphere SSO, but not all 3rd-party solutions may align with these protocols or VCF’s requirements. Documenting this risk ensures it’s considered during planning (e.g., validating compatibility during procurement), making it an essential inclusion.

Corrected Interpretation and Conclusion:Based on the scenario, the architect must document:

Arequirementthat VCF integrates with both the current AD-backed system and any future 3rd-party identity solution (interpreting Option C as misworded but contextually intended).

Ariskthat the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with VCF (Option E).

These align with VMware’s design methodology, ensuring the solution meets stated needs while flagging potential challenges. Option C is included with the caveat that its wording should be “integrate with both” rather than “only,” but since the question provides fixed options, I’ve selected it based on intent.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Identity and Access Management)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Considerations and Risks)

VMware Workspace ONE Access Integration with VCF 5.2 Documentation (Identity Provider Support)

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) design documentation, architects must adhere to VMware’s recommended design methodology, which includes identifying constraints, risks, requirements, and assumptions. These elements ensure the design aligns with the project’s scope and limitations. Let’s evaluate each option based on the scenario:

Option A: A constraint that the procured hardware must be used due to budget restrictionsA constraint is a limitation or restriction that impacts the design. The scenario explicitly states that hardware has already been procured and no additional budget is available for future procurements. This directly imposes a design constraint: the architect must use the existing, procured hardware for the new cluster. Including this in the design documentation ensures clarity that no alternative hardware options can be considered, aligning with VMware’sVCF 5.2 Architectural Guiderecommendation to document budgetary and resource constraints explicitly in the design process.

Option B: A risk that additional hardware is not available for purchaseA risk represents a potential issue that could impact the project’s success. While the lack of budget for future procurements is a fact, it’s not framed as a risk (an uncertain event) but as a known limitation. A risk might be “insufficient capacity in the procured hardware,” but the statement here focuses on the unavailability of additional purchases, which is already certain due to the budget constraint. Thus, this is better captured as a constraint (A) rather than a risk, per VMware’s design methodology.

Option C: A requirement that the cluster must be deployed within the existing workload domainA requirement defines what must be achieved. The scenario doesn’t specify that the new cluster must be part of an existing workload domain (a logical grouping of clusters in VCF). It only mentions deployment for future applications, leaving flexibility to create a new workload domain or expand an existing one. Without explicit customer or technical mandates tying the cluster to an existing domain, this isn’t a justified inclusion.

Option D: An assumption that the new cluster will provide sufficient capacity for the applicationsAn assumption is a statement taken as true without proof, pending validation. While the capacity assessment suggests the cluster is intended to support future applications, stating it “will provide sufficient capacity” assumes a conclusion not yet verified. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guideadvises against assumptions about capacity unless validated, recommending instead that capacity risks or constraints be documented if uncertain. Here, the constraint (A) takes precedence over an unverified assumption.

Conclusion:Option A is the most appropriate inclusion because it directly reflects the scenario’s budgetary limitation as a design constraint, ensuring the architect’s decision to use the procured hardware is documented clearly and aligns with VCF design best practices.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Section on Design Methodology (Constraints, Risks, Requirements, Assumptions).

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): Cluster Deployment Considerations.

In VMware vSphere, ensuring consistent performance for a mission-critical virtual machine (VM) in a resource-constrained environment requires guaranteeing that the VM receives the necessary CPU and memory resources, even when the cluster is under contention. The scenario specifies that the VM operates in a four-host vSphere cluster with no additional capacity available, meaning options that require adding resources (like D) or creating a new cluster (like C) are not feasible without additional hardware, which isn’t an option here.

Option A: Use CPU and memory reservationsReservations in vSphere guarantee a minimum amount of CPU and memory resources for a VM, ensuring that these resources are always available, even during contention. For a mission-critical application, this is the most effective way to ensure consistent performance because it prevents other VMs from consuming resources allocated to this VM. According to theVMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide, reservations are recommended for workloads requiring predictable performance, especially in environments where resource contention is a risk (e.g., 90% utilization scenarios). This aligns with VMware’s best practices for mission-critical workloads.

Option B: Use CPU and memory limitsLimits cap the maximum CPU and memory a VM can use, which could starve the mission-critical VM of resources when it needs to scale up to meet demand. This would degrade performance rather than ensure consistency, making it an unsuitable choice. ThevSphere Resource Management Guide(part of VMware’s documentation suite) advises against using limits for performance-critical VMs unless the goal is to restrict resource usage, not guarantee it.

Option C: Create a new vSphere Cluster and migrate the mission-critical virtual machine to itCreating a new cluster implies additional hardware or reallocation of existing hosts, but the question states there is no additional capacity. Without available resources, this option is impractical in the given scenario.

Option D: Add additional ESXi hosts to the current clusterWhile adding hosts would increase capacity and potentially reduce contention, the lack of additional capacity rules this out as a viable recommendation without violating the scenario constraints.

Thus,Ais the best recommendation as it leverages vSphere’s resource management capabilities to ensure consistent performance without requiring additional hardware.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Section on Resource Management for Workload Domains.

vSphere Resource Management Guide(docs.vmware.com): Chapter on Configuring Reservations, Limits, and Shares.

When sizing a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) VI Workload Domain, calculating usable compute capacity involves determining the resources available for workloads after accounting for overheads and system-level requirements. In VCF 5.2, a VI Workload Domain integrates vSphere, vSAN, and NSX, and certain factors directly impact the compute capacity available to virtual machines. Based on the official VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 documentation, the three key factors to consider are vSphere HA, vSAN, and NIOC.

In VCF, the logical design documents how design decisions align with requirements, often through justifications, assumptions, or implications. Here, adding a new cluster within the management domain for dedicated management tooling workloads requires a rationale in the logical design. Option A, a justification that the separate cluster enhances "flexibility for manageability and connectivity," aligns with VCF’s principles of workload segregation and operational efficiency. It explains why the decisionwas made—improving management tooling’s flexibility—without assuming unstated outcomes (like B’s "complete isolation," which isn’t supported by the scenario) or merely stating effects (C and D). The management domain in VCF 5.2 can host additional clusters for such purposes, and this justification ties directly to the requirement for dedicated capacity.

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, expanding an existing environment for a new application involves balancing resource needs, licensing, cost, and security. The requirements—high memory, limited licenses, approved budget, and isolation—guide the design. Let’s evaluate:

Option A: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements of the new application

This is correct. A new VI Workload Domain (minimum 3-4 hosts, depending on vSAN HA) can be tailored to the application’s high memory needs with new hardware. Isolation is achieved by dedicating the domain to the application, separating it from existing workloads (e.g., via NSX segmentation). Limited licenses can be managed by sizing the domain to match the license count (e.g., 4 hosts if licensed for 4),and the approved budget supports this. This aligns with VCF’s Standard architecture for workload separation and scalability.

Option B: Deploy a new consolidated VCF instance and deploy the new application into it

This is incorrect. A consolidated VCF instance runs management and workloads on a single cluster (4-8 hosts), mixing the new application with management components. This violates the isolation requirement for confidential data, as management and application workloads share infrastructure. It also overcomplicates licensing and memory allocation, and a new instance exceeds the intent of “expanding” the existing environment.

Option C: Purchase sufficient matching hardware to meet the new application’s memory requirements and expand an existing cluster to accommodate the new application. Use host affinity rules to manage the new licensing

This is incorrect. Expanding an existing VI Workload Domain cluster with matching hardware (to maintain vSAN compatibility) could meet memory needs, and DRS affinity rules could pin the application to licensed hosts. However, mixing the new application with existing workloads in the same domain compromises isolation for confidential data. NSX segmentation helps, but a shared cluster increases risk, making this less secure than a dedicated domain.

Option D: Order enough identical hardware for the Management Domain to meet the new application requirements and design a new Workload Domain for the application

This is incorrect. Upgrading the Management Domain (minimum 4 hosts) with high-memory hardware for the application is illogical—management domains host SDDC Manager, vCenter, etc., not user workloads. A new Workload Domain is feasible, but tying it to Management Domain hardware mismatches the VCF architecture (Management and VI domains have distinct roles). This misinterprets the requirement and wastes resources.

Conclusion:The architect should recommendA: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements of the new application. This meets all requirements—memory, licensing (via domain sizing), budget (approved costs), and isolation (dedicated domain)—within VCF 5.2’s Standard architecture.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Workload Domain Design)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Isolation and Sizing)

VMware HCX (Hybrid Cloud Extension) is a key workload migration tool in VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, enabling seamless movement of VMs between on-premises environments and VCF instances (or between VCF instances). To plan an HCX-based migration, the architect must ensure prerequisites are met for deployment, connectivity, and operation. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: Extended IP spaces for all moving workloadsThis is incorrect. HCX supports migrations with or without extending IP spaces. Features like HCX vMotion and Bulk Migration allow VMs to retain their IP addresses (Layer 2 extension via Network Extension), while HCX Mobility Optimized Networking (MON) can adapt IPs if needed. Extended IP space is a design choice, not a prerequisite, making this option unnecessary for completing the objective.

Option B: DRS enabled within the VCF instanceThis is incorrect. VMware Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS) optimizes VM placement and load balancing within a cluster but is not required for HCX migrations. HCX operates independently of DRS, handling VM mobility across environments (e.g., from a source vSphere to a VCF destination). While DRS might enhance resource management post-migration, it’s not a prerequisite for HCX functionality.

Option C: Service accounts for the applicable appliancesThis is correct. HCX requires service accounts with appropriate permissions to interact with source anddestination environments (e.g., vCenter Server, NSX). In VCF 5.2, HCX appliances (e.g., HCX Manager, Interconnect, WAN Optimizer) need credentials to authenticate and perform operations like VM discovery, migration, and network extension. The architect must ensure these accounts are configured with sufficient privileges (e.g., read/write access in vCenter), making this a critical prerequisite.

Option D: NSX Federation implemented between the VCF instancesThis is incorrect. NSX Federation is a multi-site networking construct for unified policy management across NSX deployments, but it’s not required for HCX migrations. HCX leverages its own Network Extension service to stretch Layer 2 networks between sites, independent of NSX Federation. While NSX is part of VCF, Federation is an advanced feature unrelated to HCX’s core migration capabilities.

Option E: Active Directory configured as an authentication sourceThis is correct. In VCF 5.2, HCX integrates with the VCF identity management framework, which typically uses Active Directory (AD) via vSphere SSO for authentication. Configuring AD as an authentication source ensures that HCX administrators can log in using centralized credentials, aligning with VCF’s security model. This is a prerequisite for managing HCX appliances and executing migrations securely.

Conclusion:The two prerequisites required for HCX migration in VCF 5.2 areservice accounts for the applicable appliances(Option C) to enable HCX operations andActive Directory configured as an authentication source(Option E) for secure access management. These align with HCX deployment and integration requirements in the VCF ecosystem.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: HCX Integration)

VMware HCX User Guide (VCF 5.2 compatible): Prerequisites and Configuration

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Identity and Access Management)

VMware Aria Operations Continuous Availability (CA) is a feature in VMware Aria Operations (integrated with VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2) that provides high availability by splitting analytics nodes across two fault domains (datacenters) with a Witness Node in a third location to arbitrate in case of a split-brain scenario. The Witness Node has specific network requirements for latency and bandwidth to ensure reliable communication with the primary and replica nodes. These requirements are outlined in the VMware Aria Operations documentation, which aligns with VCF 5.2 integration.

VMware Aria Operations CA Witness Node Network Requirements:

Network Latency:

The Witness Node requires a round-trip latency ofless than 100msbetween itself and both fault domains under normal conditions.

Peak latency spikes are acceptable if they are temporary and do not exceed operational thresholds, but sustained latency above 100ms can disrupt Witness functionality.

Network Bandwidth:

The minimum bandwidth requirement for the Witness Node is10Mbits/sec(10 Mbps) to support heartbeat traffic, state synchronization, and arbitration duties. Lower bandwidth risks communication delays or failures.

Network Stability:

Temporary latency spikes (e.g., during 20-second intervals) are tolerable as long as the baseline latency remains within limits and bandwidth supports consistent communication.

Evaluation of Each Datacenter:

Datacenter A: <30ms latency, peaks up to 60ms during 20sec intervals, 10Mbits/sec bandwidth

Latency: Baseline latency is <30ms, well below the 100ms threshold. Peak latency of 60ms during 20-second intervals is still under 100ms and temporary, posing no issue.

Bandwidth: 10Mbits/sec meets the minimum requirement.

Conclusion: Datacenter A fully satisfies the Witness Node requirements.

Datacenter B: <30ms latency, peaks up to 60ms during 20sec intervals, 5Mbits/sec bandwidth

Latency: Baseline <30ms and peaks up to 60ms are acceptable, similar to Datacenter A.

Bandwidth: 5Mbits/sec falls below the required 10Mbits/sec, risking insufficient capacity for Witness Node traffic.

Conclusion: Datacenter B does not meet the bandwidth requirement.

Datacenter C: <60ms latency, peaks up to 120ms during 20sec intervals, 10Mbits/sec bandwidth

Latency: Baseline <60ms is within the 100ms limit, but peaks of 120ms exceed the threshold. While temporary (20-second intervals), such spikes could disrupt Witness Node arbitration if they occur during critical operations.

Bandwidth: 10Mbits/sec meets the requirement.

Conclusion: Datacenter C fails due to excessive latency peaks.

Datacenter D: <60ms latency, peaks up to 120ms during 20sec intervals, 5Mbits/sec bandwidth

Latency: Baseline <60ms is acceptable, but peaks of 120ms exceed 100ms, similar to Datacenter C, posing a risk.

Bandwidth: 5Mbits/sec is below the required 10Mbits/sec.

Conclusion: Datacenter D fails on both latency peaks and bandwidth.

Conclusion:

OnlyDatacenter Ameets the minimum network requirements for the Witness Node in Aria Operations Continuous Availability. Its baseline latency (<30ms) and peak latency (60ms) are within the 100ms threshold, and its bandwidth (10Mbits/sec) satisfies the minimum requirement. Datacenter B lackssufficient bandwidth, while Datacenters C and D exceed acceptable latency during peaks (and D also lacks bandwidth). In a VCF 5.2 design, the architect would recommend Datacenter A for the Witness Node to ensure reliable CA operation.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Aria Operations Integration)

VMware Aria Operations 8.10 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): Continuous Availability Planning

VMware Aria Operations 8.10 Installation and Configuration Guide (Section: Network Requirements for Witness Node)

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, Aria Automation (formerly vRealize Automation) manages resource provisioning and access control. The requirements involve role-based access, environment isolation, and workload placement flexibility. Let’s analyze each option:

Option A: Separate tenants will be configured for Development and ProductionAria Automation in VCF 5.2 operates as a single-tenant application by default, integrated with SDDC Manager and vCenter. Multi-tenancy (separate tenants) is an advanced configuration typically used for service providers, not standard VCF private cloud designs. TheVMware Aria Automation Installation Guidenotes that multi-tenancy adds complexity and isn’t required for environment segregation within a single organization. Instead, projects and cloud zones handle these needs, making this unnecessary.

Option B: Users’ access to resources will be controlled by tenant membershipTenant membership applies in multi-tenant setups, where users are assigned to distinct tenants (e.g., Dev vs. Prod). Since VCF 5.2 typically uses a single tenant, and the requirements can be met with projects (group-based access), this isn’t a must-have decision. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidefavors project-based access over tenant separation for organizational control, rendering this optional.

Option C: Users’ access to resources will be controlled by project membershipProjects in Aria Automation group users and define their access to resources (e.g., cloud zones, policies). To meet the first requirement (access based on company organization) and the second (developers provisioning only to Development), projects can restrict developers to a “Dev” project linked to a Development cloud zone, while other teams (e.g., ops) access Production/DMZ via separate projects. TheVMware Aria Automation Administration Guideconfirms projects as the primary mechanism for role-based access in VCF, making this a required decision.

Option D: Separate cloud zones will be configured for Development and ProductionCloud zones in Aria Automation map to vSphere clusters or resource pools (e.g., Development, Production, DMZ clusters). To satisfy the second requirement (developers limited to Development) and the third (Production workloads on DMZ or Production clusters), separate cloud zones ensure environment isolation and placement flexibility. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidemandates cloud zones for workload segregation, tying them to projects for access control, making this essential.

Conclusion:

C: Project membership enforces user access per organization and restricts developers to Development, meeting the first two requirements.

D: Separate cloud zones isolate Development from Production/DMZ, enabling precise workload placement per the third requirement.These decisions align with Aria Automation’s design in VCF 5.2.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Aria Automation Design and Cloud Zones.

VMware Aria Automation Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): Projects and Access Control.

VMware Aria Automation Installation Guide(docs.vmware.com): Tenancy Options in VCF.

The requirements specify centralized management components and a 99.99% availability SLA (allowing ~52 minutes of downtime per year) in a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 multi-AZ design. In VCF, management components (e.g., SDDC Manager, vCenter, NSX Manager) are typically deployed in a Management Domain, and multi-AZ designs leverage availability zones for resilience. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: Implement a stretched L2 VLAN for the infrastructure management components between the AZsA stretched L2 VLAN extends network segments across AZs, potentially supporting centralized management. However, it doesn’t inherently ensure 99.99% availability without additional HA mechanisms (e.g., vSphere HA, NSX clustering). TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidenotes that L2 stretching alone lacks failover orchestration and may introduce latency or single points of failure if not paired with a stretched cluster, making it insufficient here.

Option B: Select two distant AZs and configure separate management workload domainsSeparate management workload domains in distant AZs decentralize management components (e.g., separate SDDC Managers, vCenters), violating the requirement for centralization. TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guidestates that multiple management domains increase complexity and don’t inherently meet high availability SLAs without cross-site replication, ruling this out.

Option C: Implement VMware Live Recovery between the selected AZsVMware Live Recovery (part of VMware’s DR portfolio, integrating Site Recovery Manager and vSphere Replication) provides disaster recovery across AZs. It ensures centralized management components (in one AZ) can fail over to a secondary AZ, maintaining an RTO/RPO that supports 99.99% availability when properly configured (e.g., <5-minute failover with replication). TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guiderecommends Live Recovery for multi-AZ resilience while keeping management centralized, making it a strong fit.

Option D: Implement separate VLANs for the infrastructure management components within each AZSeparate VLANs per AZ enhance network isolation but imply distributed management components across AZs, contradicting the centralized requirement. Even if management is centralized in one AZ, separate VLANs don’t directly improve availability to 99.99% without HA or DR mechanisms, per theVCF 5.2 Networking Guide.

Option E: Select two close proximity AZs and configure a stretched management workload domainA stretched management workload domain spans two close AZs (e.g., <10ms latency) using vSphere HA, vSAN stretched clusters, and NSX federation. This keeps management components centralized (single SDDC Manager, vCenter) while achieving 99.99% availability through synchronous replication and automatic failover. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidehighlights stretched clusters as a best practice for multi-AZ designs, ensuring minimal downtime (e.g., seconds during host/AZ failure), meeting the SLA.

Conclusion:

C: VMware Live Recovery enables centralized management with DR failover, supporting 99.99% availability.

E: A stretched management domain in close AZs ensures centralized, highly available management with near-zero downtime.These decisions align with VCF 5.2 multi-AZ best practices.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Multi-AZ Design and Stretched Clusters.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): Management Domain Resilience.

VMware Live Recovery Documentation(docs.vmware.com): DR for VCF Environments.

The VCF 5.2 design must ensure the business application (two VMs) remains available during business hours (9 AM - 5 PM weekdays) and is protected from storage I/O disruptions in a consolidated architecture with a single six-host cluster using vSAN. The goal is to mitigate risks to the application’s performance and availability. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: Use resource pools to apply CPU and memory reservations on the business application virtual machinesResource pools with reservations ensure CPU and memory availability, which could help performance. However, the application’s sensitivity is tostorage I/O, not CPU/memory, and the availability requirement (business hours) isn’t directly addressed by reservations. While useful, this doesn’t fully mitigate the primary risks identified, making it less optimal.

Option B: Implement FTT=6 for the business application virtual machinesThis is incorrect and infeasible. In vSAN, Failures to Tolerate (FTT) defines the number of host or disk failures a storage object can withstand, with a maximum FTT dependent on cluster size. FTT=6 requires at least 13 hosts (2n+1 where n=6), but the cluster has only six hosts, supporting a maximum FTT=2 (RAID-5/6). Even if feasible, FTT addresses data redundancy, not runtime availability or I/O sensitivity during business hours, making this irrelevant to the stated risks.

Option C: Perform ESXi host maintenance activities outside of the stated business hoursThis is the correct answer. In a vSAN-based VCF cluster, ESXi host maintenance (e.g., patching, reboots) triggers data resyncs and VM migrations (via vMotion), which can impact storage I/O performance and potentially cause brief disruptions. The application’s sensitivity to storage I/O and its availability requirement (9 AM - 5 PM weekdays) mean maintenance during business hours poses a risk. Scheduling maintenance outside these hours (e.g., nights or weekends) mitigates this by ensuring uninterrupted I/O performance and availability during critical times, directly addressing the customer’s needs.

Option D: Replace the vSAN shared storage exclusively with an All-Flash Fibre Channel shared storage solutionThis is incorrect. While an All-Flash Fibre Channel array might offer better I/O performance, VCF’s consolidated architecture relies on vSAN as the primary storage for management and workload domains. Replacing vSAN entirely contradicts the chosen architecture and introduces unnecessarycomplexity and cost. The sensitivity to storage I/O changes doesn’t justify abandoning vSAN, especially since All-Flash vSAN could meet performance needs if properly tuned.

Option E: Use Anti-Affinity Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS) rules on the business application virtual machinesAnti-Affinity DRS rules ensure the two VMs run on separate hosts, improving availability by avoiding a single host failure impacting both. While this mitigates some risk, it doesn’t address storage I/O sensitivity (a vSAN-wide concern) or guarantee availability during business hours if maintenance occurs. It’s a partial solution but less effective than scheduling maintenance outside business hours.

Conclusion:The best design decision is toperform ESXi host maintenance activities outside of the stated business hours(Option C). This directly mitigates the risk of storage I/O disruptions and ensures availability during 9 AM - 5 PM weekdays, aligning with the customer’s requirements in the VCF 5.2 consolidated architecture.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Consolidated Architecture Design)

VMware vSAN 7.0U3 Planning and Deployment Guide (integrated in VCF 5.2): Maintenance Mode Considerations

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Availability and Performance Design)

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, design documentation categorizes information into requirements, assumptions, constraints, risks, and decisions to guide the solution’s implementation. The need for workloads in VI Workload Domains to connect to an existing Fibre Channel (FC) storage array has specific implications. Let’s analyze how this should be classified:

Option A: As an assumptionAn assumption is a statement taken as true without proof, typically used when information is uncertain or unverified. The scenario states that the architectdiscoveredthis need during workshops with stakeholders, implying it’s a confirmed fact, not a guess. Documenting it as an assumption (e.g., “We assume workloads need FC storage”) would understate its certainty and misrepresent its role in the design process. This option is incorrect.

Option B: As a constraintThis is the correct answer. Aconstraintis a limitation or restriction that influences the design, often imposed by existing infrastructure, policies, or resources. The requirement to use an existing FC storage array limits the storage options for the VI Workload Domains, as VCF natively uses vSAN as the principal storage for workload domains. Integrating FC storage introduces additional complexity (e.g., FC zoning, HBA configuration) and restricts the design from relying solely on vSAN. In VCF 5.2, external storage like FC is supported via supplemental storage for VI Workload Domains, but it’s a deviation from the default architecture, making it a constraint imposed by the environment. Documenting it as such ensures it’s accounted for in planning and implementation.

Option C: As a design decisionA design decision is a deliberate choice made by the architect to meet requirements (e.g., “We will use FC storage over iSCSI”). Here, the need for FC storage is a stakeholder-provided fact, not a choice the architect made. The decision tosupportFC storage might follow, but the initial discovery is a pre-existing condition, not the decision itself. Classifying it as a design decision skips the step of recognizing it as a design input, making this option incorrect.

Option D: As a business requirementA business requirement defineswhatthe organization needs to achieve (e.g., “Workloads must support 99.9% uptime”). While the FC storage need relates to workloads, it’s a technical specification abouthowconnectivity is achieved, not a high-level business goal. Business requirements typically originate from organizational objectives, not infrastructure details discovered in workshops. This option is too broad and misaligned with the technical nature of the information, making it incorrect.

Conclusion:The need to connect workloads to an existing FC storage array is aconstraint(Option B) because it limits the storage design options for the VI Workload Domains and reflects an existing environmental factor. In VCF 5.2, this would influence the architect to plan for Fibre Channel HBAs, external storage configuration, and compatibility with vSphere, documenting it as a constraint ensures these considerations are addressed.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: VI Workload Domain Storage Options)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Constraints and Assumptions)

vSphere 7.0U3 Storage Guide (integrated in VCF 5.2): External Storage Integration

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, design qualities (or non-functional requirements) categorize how the solution meets its objectives. The requirements—“deploying 50 concurrent workloads” and“provisioning each service within 6 hours”—must be classified under a quality that reflects their intent. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: AvailabilityAvailability ensures the solution is accessible and operational when needed (e.g., uptime percentage). While deploying workloads and provisioning services assume availability, the requirements focus onspeedandcapacity(50 concurrent workloads, 6-hour limit), not uptime or fault tolerance. This quality doesn’t directly address the stated needs, making it incorrect.

Option B: RecoverabilityRecoverability addresses the ability to restore services after a failure (e.g., disaster recovery). The requirements don’t mention failure scenarios, backups, or restoration—they focus on provisioning speed and concurrency during normal operation. Recoverability is unrelated to these operational metrics, so this is incorrect.

Option C: PerformanceThis is the correct answer. Performance measures how well the solution executes tasks, including speed, throughput, and capacity. In VCF 5.2:

“Deploying 50 concurrent workloads” is a throughput requirement, ensuring the system can handle multiple deployments simultaneously.

“Each service does not take longer than 6 hours to provision” is a latency or response time requirement, setting a performance boundary.Both align with theperformancequality, which governs resource efficiency and user experience in provisioning workflows (e.g., via SDDC Manager or Aria Automation). This classification fits VMware’s design framework.

Option D: ManageabilityManageability focuses on ease of administration, monitoring, and maintenance (e.g., automation, UI simplicity). While provisioning workloads involves management, the requirements emphasizehow fastandhow many—performance metrics—not the ease of managing the process. Manageability might apply to tools enabling this, but it’s not the primary quality here.

Conclusion:The design quality to classify these requirements isPerformance(Option C). It directly reflects the solution’s ability to handle 50 concurrent workloads and provision services within 6 hours, aligning with VCF 5.2’s focus on operational efficiency.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Qualities)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Performance Considerations)

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)

VMware Aria Operations (formerly vRealize Operations) integrates with VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 to monitor the Management Domain, including SDDC Manager, vCenter, NSX, and ESXi hosts. When deployed via VMware Aria Suite Lifecycle in VCF-aware mode, Aria Operations nodes must be sized to handle the monitoring workload effectively. The node size (Small, Medium, Large, Extra Large) determines resource capacity (CPU, memory, disk) and the number of objects (e.g., VMs, hosts) it can monitor. Let’s determine the minimum requirement:

Aria Operations Node Sizing in VCF 5.2:

Small: 4 vCPUs, 16 GB RAM, monitors up to 1,500 objects or 150 hosts. Suitable for small environments.

Medium: 8 vCPUs, 32 GB RAM, monitors up to 6,000 objects or 600 hosts. Suitable for medium to large environments.

Large: 16 vCPUs, 64 GB RAM, monitors up to 15,000 objects or 1,500 hosts. For large-scale deployments.

Extra Large: 24 vCPUs, 128 GB RAM, monitors over 15,000 objects or 1,500 hosts. For very large or dense environments.

VCF Management Domain Context:

The Management Domain in VCF 5.2 typically includes:

4-7 ESXi hosts (minimum 4 for HA, often 6-7 for resilience).

Management VMs (e.g., SDDC Manager, vCenter, NSX Managers, Aria Suite components).

Typically, fewer than 50-100 objects (VMs, hosts, networks) in a standard deployment.

Aria Suite Lifecycle in VCF-aware mode deploys Aria Operations to monitor this domain, integrating with SDDC Manager for automated discovery and configuration.

Evaluation:

Small: Can monitor up to 150 hosts or 1,500 objects. For a Management Domain with ~7 hosts and <100 objects, this is sufficient capacity-wise but not the recommended minimum in VCF-aware mode due to integration overhead and future growth.

Medium: Supports up to 600 hosts or 6,000 objects. This size is recommended as the minimum for VCF deployments because it accommodates the Management Domain’s complexity (e.g., NSX, vSAN metrics) and allows headroom for additional monitoring (e.g., future Workload Domains).

Large/Extra Large: Overkill for a single Management Domain, designed for multi-domain or large-scale environments.

VMware Guidance:

The VMware Aria Operations documentation and VCF integration guides specify that in VCF-aware mode (via Aria Suite Lifecycle), theMediumnode size is the minimum recommended for effective monitoring of a Management Domain. This ensures performance for real-time analytics, dashboards, and integration with SDDC Manager, even if the initial object count is low. The Small size, while technically feasible for tiny setups, is not advised due to potential limitations in handling VCF-specific metrics and scalability.

Conclusion:The minimum Aria Operations Analytics node size requirement when Aria Suite Lifecycle is in VCF-aware mode isMedium(Option C). This balances resource needs with effective monitoring for the VCF 5.2 Management Domain.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Aria Operations Integration)

VMware Aria Operations 8.10 Sizing Guidelines (integrated in VCF 5.2): Node Size Recommendations

VMware Aria Suite Lifecycle 8.10 Documentation (VCF-aware mode requirements)

In VCF 5.2, the logical design focuses on high-level architectural decisions that define the system’s structure and behavior, as opposed to physical or operational details. Networking decisions in the logical design emphasize scalability, security policies, and connectivity frameworks, per theVCF 5.2 Architectural Guide. Let’s evaluate each:

Option A: Use of 2x 64-port Cisco Nexus 9300 for top-of-rack ESXi host switchesThis specifies physical hardware, a detail typically documented in the physical design (e.g., BOM, rack layout). TheVCF 5.2 Design Guidedistinguishes hardware choices as physical, not logical, unless they dictate architecture (e.g., spine-leaf), which isn’t implied here.

Option B: NSX Distributed Firewall (DFW) rule to block all traffic by defaultThis is a security policy configuration within NSX, defining how traffic is controlled. While critical, it’s an operational or detailed design decision (e.g., rule set), not a high-level logical design element. TheVCF 5.2 Networking Guideplaces DFW rules in implementation details, not the logical overview.

Option C: Implement overlay network technology to scale across data centersOverlay networking (e.g., NSX VXLAN or Geneve) is a foundational architectural decision in VCF, enabling scalability, multi-site connectivity, and logical separation of networks. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidehighlights overlays as a core logical design component, directly impacting how the solution scales across data centers, making it a prime candidate for the logical design.

Option D: Configure Cisco Discovery Protocol (CDP) - Listen mode on all Distributed Virtual Switches (DVS)CDP in Listen mode aids network discovery and troubleshooting on DVS. This is a configuration setting, not a logical design decision. TheVCF 5.2 Networking Guidetreats such protocol settings as operational details, not architectural choices.

Conclusion:Option C belongs in the logical design, as it defines a scalable networking architecture critical to VCF 5.2’s multi-data center capabilities.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Logical Design and Overlay Networking.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Networking Guide(docs.vmware.com): NSX and DVS Configuration.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Design Guide(docs.vmware.com): Logical vs. Physical Design.

In VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2, NSX Edge clusters provide critical networking services, such as North-South connectivity via Tier-0 Gateways, often using BGP for dynamic routing. Deploying NSX Edges via SDDC Manager integrates them into the VCF lifecycle management framework, which impacts their configuration and operational capabilities. Let’s analyze each option:

Option A: NSX Edges deployed via SDDC Manager can be updated separately in the futureIn VCF, SDDC Manager manages the lifecycle (deployment, upgrades, etc.) of NSX components, including Edge nodes. However, updates are not performed “separately” from the VCF stack; they are part of a coordinated upgrade process across the management domain. TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guidenotes that Edge updates are tied to NSX Manager and SDDC Manager workflows, contradicting the idea of independent updates. This doesn’t justify the design decision.

Option B: VPN service in NSX will be available and configurable via SDDC Manager with NSX Edges deployed using this methodWhen NSX Edges are deployed via SDDC Manager in the Management Domain, they are fully integrated into the VCF architecture. This enables advanced NSX features, such as VPN services (L2VPN, IPsec VPN), to be configured and managed through SDDC Manager or NSX Manager UIs. TheVMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Networking Guideconfirms that deploying Edges via SDDC Manager supports North-South connectivity (e.g., via Tier-0 with BGP) and additional services like VPN, providing operational flexibility. This justifies the decision by aligning with VCF’s integrated management capabilities.

Option C: Extra Large form factor is available only when edges are deployed using SDDC ManagerNSX Edge form factors (Small, Medium, Large, Extra Large) are determined by resource requirements and deployment method, but the Extra Large form factor is available whether Edges are deployed manually via NSX Manager or through SDDC Manager in VCF. TheNSX-T Data Center Installation Guide(part of VMware docs) clarifies that form factor selection is independent of the deployment tool, making this statement inaccurate and not a justification.

Option D: This deployment method will automatically configure dynamic routingDeploying Edges via SDDC Manager automates some aspects of setup (e.g., cluster creation, basicnetworking), but dynamic routing (e.g., BGP) requires manual configuration of peers, ASNs, and route maps via NSX Manager. TheVCF 5.2 Networking Guidestates that while SDDC Manager streamlines deployment, BGP configuration remains a post-deployment task, disproving “automatic” configuration as a justification.

Conclusion:Option B is the correct justification because deploying NSX Edges via SDDC Manager ensures integration with VCF’s management plane, enabling features like VPN services alongside BGP-based North-South connectivity in the Management Domain. This aligns with the architect’s goal of leveraging VCF’s centralized management strengths.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Networking Guide(docs.vmware.com): Section on NSX Edge Deployment and Tier-0 Gateway Configuration.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): SDDC Manager Workflows for NSX Edge Clusters.

NSX-T Data Center Installation Guide(docs.vmware.com): Edge Node Deployment Options.

When determining the compute capacity for a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) VI Workload Domain, the goal is to calculate the usable resources available to support virtual machines (VMs) and their workloads. This involves evaluating the physical compute resources (CPU, memory, storage) and accounting for overheads, efficiency features, and configurations that impact resource availability. Below, each option is analyzed in the context of VCF 5.2, with a focus on official documentation and architectural considerations:

A. vSAN space efficiency feature enablementThis is a critical element to consider. VMware Cloud Foundation often uses vSAN as the primary storage for VI Workload Domains. vSAN offers space efficiency features such as deduplication, compression, and erasure coding (RAID-5/6). When enabled, these features reduce the physical storage capacity required for VM data, directly impacting the usable storage resources available for compute workloads. For example, deduplication and compression can significantly increase usable capacity by eliminating redundant data, while erasure coding trades off some capacity for fault tolerance. The VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation documentation emphasizes the need to account for vSAN policies and efficiency features when sizing storage, as they influence the effective capacity available for VMs. Thus, this is a key factor in compute capacity planning.

B. VM swap fileThe VM swap file is an essential consideration for compute capacity, particularly for memory resources. In VMware vSphere (a core component of VCF), each powered-on VM requires a swap file equal to thesize of its configured memory minus any memory reservation. This swap file is stored on the datastore (often vSAN in VCF) and consumes storage capacity. When calculating usable resources, you must account for this overhead, as it reduces the available storage for other VM data (e.g., virtual disks). Additionally, if memory overcommitment is used, the swap file size can significantly impact capacity planning. The VMware Cloud Foundation Design Guide and vSphere documentation highlight the importance of factoring in VM swap file overhead when determining resource availability, making this a valid element to consider.

C. Disk capacity per VMWhile disk capacity per VM is important for storage sizing, it is not directly a primary factor in calculatingusable compute resourcesfor a VI Workload Domain in the context of this question. Disk capacity per VM is a workload-specific requirement that contributes to overall storage demand, but it does not inherently determine the usable CPU or memory resources of the domain. In VCF, storage capacity is typically managed by vSAN or other supported storage solutions, and while it must be sufficient to accommodate all VMs, it is a secondary consideration compared to CPU, memory, and efficiency features when focusing on compute capacity. Official documentation, such as the VCF 5.2 Administration Guide, separates storage sizing from compute resource planning, so this is not one of the top three elements here.

D. Number of 10GbE NICs per VMThe number of 10GbE NICs per VM relates to networking configuration rather than compute capacity (CPU and memory resources). While networking is crucial for VM performance and connectivity in a VI Workload Domain, it does not directly influence the calculation of usable compute resources like CPU cores or memory. In VCF 5.2, networking design (e.g., NSX or vSphere networking) ensures sufficient bandwidth and NICs at the host level, but per-VM NIC counts are a design detail rather than a capacity determinant. The VMware Cloud Foundation Design Guide focuses NIC considerations on host-level design, not VM-level compute capacity, so this is not a relevant element here.

E. CPU/Cores per VMThis is a fundamental element in compute capacity planning. The number of CPU cores assigned to each VM directly affects how many VMs can be supported by the physical CPU resources in the VI Workload Domain. In VCF, compute capacity is based on the total number of physical CPU cores across all ESXi hosts, with a minimum of 16 cores per CPU required for licensing (as per the VCF 5.2 Release Notes and licensing documentation). When calculating usable resources, you must consider how many cores are allocated per VM, factoring in overcommitment ratios and workload demands. The VCF Planning and Preparation Workbook explicitly includes CPU/core allocation as a key input for sizing compute resources, making this a critical factor.

F. Number of VMsWhile the total number of VMs is a key input for overall capacity planning, it is not a direct element in calculatingusable compute resources. Instead, it is a derived outcome based on the available CPU, memory, and storage resources after accounting for overheads and per-VM allocations. The VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 documentation (e.g., Capacity Planning for Management and Workload Domains) uses the number of VMs as a planning target, not a determinant of usable capacity. Thus, it is not one of the top three elements for this specific calculation.

Conclusion:The three elements that should be considered when calculating usable compute resources arevSAN space efficiency feature enablement (A),VM swap file (B), andCPU/Cores per VM (E). These directly impact the effective CPU, memory, and storage resources available for VMs in a VI Workload Domain.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Workbook

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Design Guide

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Release Notes

VMware vSphere 8.0 Update 3 Documentation (for VM swap file and CPU allocation details)

VMware Cloud Foundation Administration Guide