VMware VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam 2V0-13.24 Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (October 2025)

Business requirements in VCF articulate organizational objectives that the solution must enable, often focusing on efficiency, cost, or service improvements rather than specific technical implementations. Option B, "Decrease processing time for service requests by 30%," is a business requirement as it targets an operational efficiency goal that benefits the customer’s service delivery, measurable from a business perspective rather than dictating how the system achieves it. Options A, C, and D—specifying OS compatibility, user capacity, and encryption standards—are technical requirements, as they detail system capabilities or security mechanisms that architects must implement within VCF components like vSphere or NSX. The distinction hinges on intent: B focuses on outcome (speed), while others define system properties.

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.

VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) offers two primary architectural models:Standard Architecture(separate Management and Workload Domains) andConsolidated Architecture(combined management and workloads in a single domain). The requirement to minimize management tool instances suggests centralizing management where possible, while the diverse network infrastructure (40Gb, 10Gb, 100Mb) and workload performance needs influence the design. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: Headquarters will have a private cloud based on the VCF Consolidated ArchitectureThe Consolidated Architecture combines management and workload components in one domain, suitable for smaller deployments with limited resources. However, headquarters has a brand-new datacenter with 40Gb networking, indicating a high-capacity environment likely intended as the central hub. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guiderecommends the Standard Architecture for larger, scalable deployments with robust infrastructure, as it separates management for better isolation and scalability, conflicting with Consolidated Architecture here.

Option B: Larger stores will have a private cloud based on the VCF Consolidated ArchitectureLarger stores have 10Gb infrastructure and secure machine rooms, suggesting moderate capacity. While Consolidated Architecture could work, it requires a full VCF stack (SDDC Manager, vCenter, NSX) per site, increasing management instances. This contradicts the requirement to minimize management tools, as each store would need its own management stack.

Option C: Smaller stores will have remote clusters deployed from the HQ VCF instanceSmaller stores with 100Mb infrastructure are resource-constrained. Deploying remote clusters (e.g., stretched or additional clusters) managed by the HQ VCF instance leverages centralized SDDC Manager and vCenter, minimizing management tools. TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guidesupports remote cluster deployment from a central VCF instance, ensuring performance via local workload placement while reducing administrative overhead—ideal for the pilot phase.

Option D: Smaller stores will have remote clusters deployed from the geographically closest Larger store VCF instanceThis assumes larger stores host their own VCF instances, which increases management complexity (multiple SDDC Managers). The requirement to minimize management tools favors a single HQ-managed instance over distributed management from larger stores, making this less optimal.

Option E: Headquarters will have a private cloud based on the VCF Standard ArchitectureThe Standard Architecture deploys a dedicated Management Domain at HQ (with 40Gb infrastructure) and allows workload domains or remote clusters to be managed centrally. This aligns with minimizing management instances (one SDDC Manager, one vCenter) while supporting high-performance workloads across all locations, per theVCF 5.2 Architectural Guide. It’s the best fit for HQ’s role as the central hub.

Option F: Larger stores will have workload domains deployed from the HQ VCF instanceDeploying workload domains for larger stores from HQ’s VCF instance uses the Standard Architecture’s flexibility to manage multiple domains centrally. With 10Gb infrastructure, larger stores can host workloads efficiently under HQ’s SDDC Manager, avoiding separate VCF instances and meeting the management minimization requirement without compromising performance.

Conclusion:

E: Standard Architecture at HQ provides a scalable, centralized management foundation.

F: Workload domains for larger stores from HQ reduce management overhead.

C: Remote clusters for smaller stores from HQ support the pilot with minimal tools.This trio balances centralized management with performance across varied infrastructure.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Section on Standard vs. Consolidated Architecture.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): Remote Cluster and Workload Domain Deployment.

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) 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)

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, design documentation includes assumptions, constraints, requirements, and risks to define the solution’s scope and address potential challenges. The scenario provides specific information about workload types and their behavior over time, which the architect must categorize appropriately. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: An assumption that the DB workload resource requirements will remain staticThis is the correct answer. Anassumptionis a statement taken as true without proof, often based on customer-provided information, to guide design planning. The customer explicitly states that “the DBworkloads will stay the same in terms of resources over time.” Documenting this as an assumption reflects this fact and allows the architect to size the VCF instance with a fixed resource allocation for DB workloads, while planning scalability for other workloads. This aligns with VMware’s design methodology for capturing stable baseline conditions.

Option B: A constraint of including the management, DB, and VDI environmentsThis is incorrect. Aconstraintis a limitation or restriction imposed on the design, such as existing hardware or policies. The need to support management, VDI, DB, and general workloads is arequirement(what the solution must do), not a limitation. Labeling it a constraint misrepresents its role—it’s a design goal, not a restrictive factor. Constraints might include budget or rack space, but this scenario doesn’t indicate such limits.

Option C: A requirement consisting of the growth of the general workloads and VDI environmentThis is a strong contender but incorrect in this context. Arequirementdefines what the solution must achieve, and the customer’s statement that “general workloads and VDI environments are expected to grow over the next 3 years” could be a requirement (e.g., “The solution must support growth…”). However, the question asks for a single item, and Option A better captures a foundational planning element (static DB workloads) that directly informs sizing. Growth could be a requirement, but it’s less immediate than the assumption about DB stability for initial design documentation.

Option D: A risk that the VCF instance may not have enough capacity for growthThis is incorrect as the primary answer. Ariskidentifies potential issues that could impact success, such as insufficient capacity for growing workloads. While this is a valid concern given VDI and general workload growth, the scenario doesn’t provide evidence of immediate capacity limitations—only an expectation of growth. Risks are typically documented after sizing, not as the sole initial inclusion. The assumption about DB workloads is more fundamental to start the design process.

Conclusion:The architect should includean assumption that the DB workload resource requirements will remain static(Option A). This reflects the customer’s explicit statement, establishes a baseline for sizing the Management Domain and Workload Domains, and allows planning for growth elsewhere. While growth (C) and risk (D) are relevant, the assumption is the most immediate and appropriate single item for initial documentation in VCF 5.2.

References:

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

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

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, VMware Aria Automation (formerly vRealize Automation) enhances the platform by providing self-service, automation, and multi-site management capabilities. The architect must determine which requirements (REQ01-REQ05) are directly satisfied by the design decisions (DD01 and DD02). Let’s evaluate each requirement against the decisions:

Design Decisions:

DD01: Clustered deployment of Aria Automation

A clustered deployment ensures high availability and scalability of Aria Automation, supporting multiple users and workloads with resilience.

DD02: Integration between Aria Automation and multiple geo-located vCenter Servers

This enables centralized management of distributed vSphere environments (e.g., across availability zones or regions), facilitating network and resource orchestration.

Evaluation of Requirements:

Option A: REQ01 - The solution must support the private cloud cybersecurity industry and local standards and controls

This requirement focuses on cybersecurity and compliance (e.g., encryption, access controls, auditing). While Aria Automation supports role-based access control (RBAC) and integrates with secure VCF components, neither DD01 nor DD02 directly addresses cybersecurity standards or local controls. These are typically met by VCF’s baseline security features (e.g., NSX, vSphere hardening), not specifically by Aria Automation’s clustering or vCenter integration. Thus, REQ01 is not directly satisfied by the stated decisions.

Option B: REQ02 - The solution must ensure that the cloud services are transitioned to operation teams

This requirement implies operational handoff, training, or automation to enable operations teams to manage services. Aria Automation’s clustering (DD01) improves reliability, and vCenter integration (DD02) centralizes management, but neither explicitly ensures a transition process (e.g., documentation, runbooks). This is more about operational processes than the technical decisions provided, so REQ02 is not directly satisfied.

Option C: REQ03 - The solution must provide a self-service portal

This is correct. Aria Automation’s primary function in VCF 5.2 is to provide a self-service portal for users to provision and manage resources (e.g., VMs, applications). A clustered deployment (DD01) ensures theportal’s availability and scalability, supporting multiple users concurrently. Integration with vCenter Servers (DD02) enhances its capability to deploy resources across sites, but DD01 alone directly satisfies REQ03 by enabling a robust self-service experience. Thus, REQ03 is satisfied.

Option D: REQ04 - The solution must provide the ability to consume storage based on policies

This requirement involves policy-driven storage management (e.g., vSAN storage policies). Aria Automation supports storage policies via integration with vSphere/vSAN, allowing users to define storage profiles (e.g., performance, capacity). However, this capability is inherent to vSphere/vSAN integration, not uniquely tied to clustering (DD01) or geo-located vCenter integration (DD02). While Aria Automation facilitates this, the design decisions don’t specifically address storage policy consumption as a primary outcome, making REQ04 less directly satisfied compared to others.

Option E: REQ05 - The solution should provide the ability to extend networks between different availability zones

This is correct. Integrating Aria Automation with multiple geo-located vCenter Servers (DD02) enables management of distributed environments, including network extension across availability zones. In VCF 5.2, this leverages NSX-T for Layer 2 stretching (e.g., via HCX or NSX Federation), orchestrated through Aria Automation. DD02 directly supports this by connecting disparate vCenters, allowing network policies and extensions to be applied across zones. Clustering (DD01) supports scalability but isn’t the key factor—DD02 is the primary enabler. Thus, REQ05 is satisfied.

Conclusion:

The two requirements satisfied by the design decisions are:

REQ03 (C): A clustered Aria Automation deployment (DD01) directly provides a reliable self-service portal.

REQ05 (E): Integration with multiple geo-located vCenter Servers (DD02) enables network extension across availability zones.While REQ04 is partially supported, REQ03 and REQ05 are the most directly tied to the stated decisions in the VCF 5.2 context.

References:

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

VMware Aria Automation 8.10 Documentation (integrated in VCF 5.2): Self-Service Portal and Multi-Site Management

VMware NSX-T 3.2 Reference Design (integrated in VCF 5.2): Network Extension Capabilities