2V0-13.25 VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 Architect Question and Answers

In VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0, vSphere Lifecycle Manager (vLCM) with composite images is the recommended method for managing host lifecycle. However, when using hardware of different generations, it's not advisable to use a single composite image across clusters with hardware inconsistencies due to potential compatibility mismatches with firmware and drivers.

By using separate vLCM composite images for each cluster (i.e., management and workload), the architect ensures that each cluster's image is optimized for its specific hardware generation, reducing the risk of driver/firmware issues during updates or drift remediation.

This design aligns with the principle of cluster-level lifecycle independence, especially important when working with a mix of hardware generations.

Due to the explicit constraint that no internet access is permitted, the VCF Installer cannot connect to an online depot. Instead, the architect must use the offline depot model, where binaries are downloaded externally and made accessible locally within the VCF environment (e.g., using a local web server).

This setup aligns with VMware's "air-gapped" deployment guidance for VCF environments with strict security postures.

According to VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 documentation, when a stretched cluster is deployed across sites with sub-5ms latency and high-speed interconnects, vSAN can be configured for zero RPO (Recovery Point Objective), ensuring 100% data consistency and availability in the event of a site failure. vSAN supports co-locating management and application workloads and provides the shared storage functionality with automatic failover capabilities.

Additionally, vSphere Virtual Volumes (vVols) provide granular control of virtual machine storage, and when backed by a storage system that supports replication and failover across sites (with support for VASA 3.0 or later), vVols can meet the same requirements for data availability and disaster recovery.

The requirements specify:

Large-scale migration (800 workloads).

No downtime.

Strict change window (4 weeks).

HCX Replication Assisted vMotion (RAV) is the only method that combines large-scale migration efficiency with zero downtime:

Workloads are replicated in advance.

During the cutover, a vMotion-like switchover completes with no outage.

Other methods:

Cross vCenter vMotion works for live moves but is not efficient for hundreds of VMs within a short timeline.

HCX OS Assisted Migration is for physical-to-virtual or non-vSphere workloads (not applicable).

HCX Bulk Migration is efficient but introduces downtime during cutover.

Thus, HCX RAV best meets the no-downtime, large-scale requirement.

Business requirements describe the high-level goals of the organization, typically related to user experience, cost reduction, compliance, or agility.

A (best end-user experience) aligns directly with business objectives.

B, C, and D are technical requirements: they specify infrastructure design behaviors (migration, security, SLA).

Therefore, the business requirement is ensuring the best end-user experience.

Constraints are design limitations that cannot be changed and must be worked around.

B (no funding for new storage, so existing must be used) is a clear constraint, as it restricts the architect from proposing new storage hardware.

A (out of maintenance) represents a risk (unsupported hardware may fail).

C and D are requirements, not constraints, because they describe desired functionality of the solution.

Thus, the correct constraint is that existing storage must be used due to funding limitations.

In the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design and Architecture Framework, functional (business) requirements describe what the system must do — the specific behaviors, features, or services it must provide to meet business objectives.

The statement, “The solution must provide the ability for users to view and track the progress of their requests,” defines a business-driven functionality — the need for request visibility in the service catalog, directly impacting user experience and service operations.

By contrast:

Option B defines a Service Level Objective (SLO), categorized as a non-functional (performance) requirement.

Option C pertains to availability and resilience, a non-functional reliability requirement.

Option D is a security and compliance requirement, also non-functional.

Therefore, option A is the only one describing a functional capability — the system feature enabling users to monitor their service request lifecycle.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide — “Functional vs. Non-Functional Requirements Classification.”

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Architecture Guide — “Mapping Business Functional Requirements to Service Capabilities.”

---

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (Based on VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Design Guide):

According to the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Architecture and Design Guide, Cloud Zones in VCF Automation (Aria Automation) define logical groupings of compute resources that can be allocated to different projects or business units. It specifies:

“Cloud zones provide segmentation and allocation of infrastructure resources such as clusters and hosts. They allow administrators to ensure dedicated or shared access to compute resources across projects.”

By mapping specific clusters or compute pools to business units via Cloud Zones, IT Services can maintain central management within a single workload domain while granting exclusive hardware access per business unit. Standardized catalog items can still be offered through VCF Automation projects, with zone-specific deployment constraints to enforce isolation.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Design Guide — “Cloud Zone Resource Allocation and Governance.” (pp. 6446–6450)

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Operations Guide — “Project Resource Management using Cloud Zones.”

As per the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide (Conceptual, Logical, and Physical Model Framework), a conceptual model defines what the solution will deliver at a high level — focusing on major components and interactions without specifying implementation details or configurations.

The statement “Users will connect to the application servers via the NSX Advanced Load Balancer” fits this definition because it identifies a functional relationship between solution components (users and applications) and introduces the NSX ALB as a key service enabler — without going into configuration or performance specifics.

In contrast:

Option A (MTTR 6 hours) defines a service level target, part of non-functional design.

Option B (stretched L2 networks) and C (vSphere HA parameter tuning) belong to the logical and physical design stages respectively, as they involve implementation specifics.

Therefore, D represents a conceptual model statement, describing service delivery intent and architectural interaction.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide — “Conceptual, Logical, and Physical Design Layers Explained.”

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Architecture Design Standards — “Conceptual Model: High-Level Service Definition and Interaction.”

Per the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 and 9.0.4 Architecture and Automation Design Guides, VCF Automation enables multi-tenancy by assigning dedicated orchestration instances per organization for secure separation of workflows.

The documentation specifies:

“The embedded VCF Operations orchestrator is installed by default as part of the Provider Consumption Organization. Each tenant organization that requires workflow autonomy must deploy its own external VCF Operations orchestrator instance.”

Thus, in a multi-tenant model:

The Provider Tenant uses the embedded VCF Operations Orchestrator instance to manage global workflows.

Each Tenant Organization must use its own external orchestrator instance for isolation, control, and workflow management.

This design ensures logical separation, prevents cross-tenant interference, and aligns with VCF’s security and autonomy best practices for service provider and enterprise models.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide — “VCF Automation Orchestrator Deployment Options (Embedded vs. External).”

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Design Guide — “VCF Operations Orchestrator Integration for Multi-Tenant Organizations.”

According to the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Framework, Technical Requirements describe how the business and functional goals are to be implemented through technology, configuration, and design mechanisms. The document defines:

“Technical requirements determine how a solution’s business and functional objectives are achieved using technical means such as architecture components, configurations, and integrations.”

These are distinct from business requirements, which define what must be achieved, and constraints, which limit design options. Technical requirements translate abstract needs (for example, availability, scalability, performance) into actionable design implementations (such as anti-affinity rules, distributed switches, NSX federation, or vSAN stretched clusters).

By following VMware’s VCF Design Methodology, architects use technical requirements to shape logical and physical architectures, ensuring that all solution components meet the identified business outcomes and compliance standards.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design and Architecture Guide — Requirements Classification and Technical Requirements Definition (pp. 58–61).

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Design Framework — Business, Functional, and Technical Requirement Mapping to Design Decisions.

To support MFA and integration with third-party authentication, the external VCF Identity Broker model (VIDB) is required. The external model is designed to interface with advanced identity providers supporting MFA, which the embedded model cannot accommodate.

Furthermore, to avoid shared components across multiple VCF instances and to reduce the impact of operational errors (e.g., configuration or certificate issues), a dedicated Identity Broker per VCF instance ensures complete separation and fault isolation.

This approach aligns with VMware’s recommended high availability and security practices for VCF 9.0. It ensures the MFA requirement is met and operational risks are minimized.

A single workload domain in VCF maps to a single vCenter instance. When the host limit for that vCenter is reached (typically ~1000 hosts per vCenter), the correct and supported scale-out design is to deploy a second VI workload domain, which comes with its own dedicated vCenter instance, allowing continued expansion without affecting the existing domain.

The overall private cloud SLA is 99.9%, but Platinum applications require 99.99%, which exceeds the infrastructure SLA. VMware design methodology states:

If an application’s SLA is higher than the infrastructure SLA, then the application itself must provide the additional resilience (e.g., clustering, active-active deployment, or application-level HA).

Options A and B reduce flexibility or impose unnecessary complexity.

Option D (Proactive HA) improves resiliency but cannot guarantee 99.99%, since Proactive HA still depends on underlying infrastructure SLA.

Therefore, the only valid recommendation is that Platinum workloads must implement resilience at the application layer.

The VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Design Guide specifies that in a Highly Available (HA) VCF Automation deployment, three appliances are deployed to ensure redundancy and meet a minimum availability SLA of 99.9%. To maintain continuous performance during host maintenance or hardware failure, VMware recommends:

“Each appliance instance should be placed on a separate ESXi host using a VM-host anti-affinity rule to eliminate single points of failure.”

Furthermore, to achieve external traffic distribution and redundancy, the guide states:

“In HA mode, an external load balancer is required to distribute requests across the cluster nodes and provide failover when a node or host becomes unavailable.”

The native Kubernetes load balancer cannot manage cross-node traffic distribution in an HA VCF Automation setup. Therefore, the architect must configure an external load balancer and define anti-affinity rules to ensure appliance distribution across hosts, achieving both the SLA and fault tolerance requirements.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Architecture and Design Guide — VCF Automation High Availability Deployment Model (pp. 455–460).

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide — Anti-Affinity Rules for Automation Nodes in HA Clusters.

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Operations Guide — External Load Balancer Configuration Requirements for VCF Automation.

To enforce strict separation of monitoring data, logs, and access control, deploying two separate VCF Operations instances is the recommended solution. This ensures that each department (HR and Finance) has a completely isolated monitoring stack, including dashboards, alerts, log retention, and user roles.

Although scopes and index partitions can provide some level of logical segregation within a single instance, they do not guarantee complete security isolation, especially in environments with strict compliance or multi-tenancy concerns. Deploying two separate instances ensures compliance with data isolation and privacy requirements, making it the most secure and compliant option.

As defined in the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design and Architecture Guide, the design quality of Performance relates to how well the system responds to workloads under specified conditions — including throughput, latency, scalability, and responsiveness. Performance requirements typically specify concurrent workload capacity, transaction throughput, or system responsiveness under load, distinguishing them from availability (uptime), recoverability (RTO/RPO), or manageability (administrative efficiency).

The requirement to “support 50,000 workloads concurrently” and “concurrent deployment of up to 10 workloads” clearly defines system throughput and scalability targets, both of which are categorized under performance in VMware’s design quality framework. The VCF design methodology explicitly states that “Performance design factors ensure the platform can sustain the expected workload and scale appropriately under peak load without degradation.”

Thus, the architect must classify these as Performance requirements and ensure design validation includes capacity planning, cluster scalability testing, and vSAN throughput validation to confirm that the system can meet these operational demands.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Architecture and Design Guide — “Design Qualities: Performance, Availability, Manageability, Recoverability”

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Design Library — “Mapping Business Requirements to Performance Criteria.”

Since the constraint is existing stretched cluster model, the design assumes a single cluster across two sites.

To meet the minimize downtime requirement, the Single Management Zone Supervisor with HA control plane ensures control plane resiliency within that stretched cluster.

Options with “Simple Availability” do not meet the high availability requirement. Options with three zones are not applicable because the constraint specifies a stretched cluster model.

According to the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Documentation (p.5802–5804), administrators can configure resource limits for vSphere Namespaces, which define how much CPU, memory, and storage can be consumed.

The guide specifies under “Set Resource Limits to a vSphere Namespace”:

“As a vSphere administrator, you can set resource limits and container defaults on a vSphere Namespace. Options include CPU, Memory, and Storage. Container defaults set CPU limits, CPU requests, memory requests, and memory limits for containers within the Namespace.”

These limits provide governance and ensure that workloads deployed within a namespace do not exceed predefined consumption levels, maintaining cluster resource balance and preventing noisy-neighbor scenarios.

The document further clarifies that storage limits are applied per storage policy and CPU and memory limits define the total reserved compute capacity available to workloads and pods running in the namespace.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 — “Set Resource Limits to a vSphere Namespace” (p.5802–5803)

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 — “Self-Service Namespace Template Provisioning Workflow.”

The VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide defines Manageability as the design quality that focuses on monitoring, configuration, reporting, and operational management capabilities. It states:

“Manageability encompasses the ability to monitor, configure, and control the solution effectively, ensuring operational insights and compliance with business objectives.”

The requirement to support 10,000 monitored objects and retain monitoring data for 24 months directly relates to the system’s ability to manage and retain operational metrics, not to its performance or availability. These parameters ensure long-term visibility, compliance, and data analytics consistency—core elements of Manageability.

In contrast:

Performance focuses on throughput and latency.

Availability ensures uptime and fault tolerance.

Recoverability deals with restoration after failure.

Therefore, the classification of these requirements falls under Manageability, as they directly define how the system manages and retains monitoring data.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Architecture Guide — “Design Qualities: Availability, Manageability, Performance, Recoverability, and Security.” (pp. 72–74)

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Design Framework — “Classification of Monitoring and Retention Requirements under Manageability.”

The first workshop focuses on understanding business drivers, objectives, and outcomes before diving into design specifics. VMware design methodology stresses that architects should start with business requirements and then move toward conceptual, logical, and physical designs.

A and C are premature — topology and design decisions should not be presented before business outcomes are captured.

B focuses on product features, which is technical and should come later.

D is correct because identifying business objectives ensures the architecture aligns with customer goals.

Requirements define what the solution must deliver.

B (block-based storage in WLD) is a technical requirement that specifies a mandatory design need.

Other options:

A (must use existing storage) is a constraint.

C (sufficient storage) is an assumption.

D (network team not trained) is a risk.

Hence, the valid requirement is that block-based storage must be used in the workload domain.

These are classic Recoverability metrics. The Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) directly relate to how fast and how much data can be recovered after a failure or disaster event. The architect must ensure the VCF deployment includes recovery mechanisms, such as stretched clusters or backup/replication technology, that meet these defined RTO/RPO targets.

According to the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 Architecture Guide under the VMware Kubernetes Service (VKS) Lifecycle Management section, the management and orchestration of Kubernetes clusters within VCF occur through three controller layers. These are explicitly identified as the Virtual Machine Service, the Cluster API (CAPI), and the Cloud Provider Plugin (CPP).

The Virtual Machine Service (VMS) acts as the integration layer between vSphere and Kubernetes, enabling Kubernetes objects (such as clusters and machines) to be represented as vSphere resources. The Cluster API provides declarative lifecycle management for Kubernetes clusters, automating provisioning, upgrades, and scaling through Kubernetes-native APIs. The Cloud Provider Plugin integrates the cluster lifecycle with vSphere infrastructure management, ensuring alignment of networking, storage, and compute resource operations.

Together, these three controller layers deliver a fully automated, policy-driven, and API-centric approach to cluster provisioning, maintenance, and scaling in VCF-based environments, supporting consistent lifecycle operations across workload domains. This framework replaces traditional manual configuration and ensures full compliance with VCF’s software-defined architecture principles.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

• VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 Architecture and Design Guide – “VMware Kubernetes Service (VKS) Lifecycle Management Architecture.”

• VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 Detailed Design Library – “VKS Cluster Architecture: Virtual Machine Service, Cluster API, and Cloud Provider Plugin.”

• VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Reference Design – “Cluster Lifecycle Controller Layers in VCF Kubernetes Service.”

VMware Cloud Foundation architecture uses the RACR framework (Requirements, Assumptions, Constraints, Risks) to classify inputs:

Business requirements describe high-level outcomes the business wants to achieve, often focusing on cost, efficiency, or customer satisfaction.

Technical requirements define how infrastructure should behave to meet performance, resiliency, or security needs.

Among the given options:

A (growth by 30%) and C (no SPOF) are technical requirements.

B (security and resiliency) is also a technical requirement.

D (reduce operational costs) directly aligns with business goals, making it the correct business requirement.

Conceptual model items are categorized as requirements, assumptions, risks, and constraints:

A is a clear requirement, aligned with the business objective of continuous uptime and availability.

B is a valid risk, as the availability of the external internet provider impacts the user experience.

F is an assumption, implying that budget will not be a limitation in achieving the desired level of performance.

Items like C are too technically specific for the conceptual layer. D directly contradicts the business objective, and E relates more to operational constraints rather than high-level design goals.