Which two statements regarding Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS) affinity rules are true? (Choose two.)

Question

Options

• AWhen two VM-VM affinity rules conflict, the older one takes precedence and the newer rule is
• BUsing Specify Failover Hosts admission control policy, VM-VM affinity rules are not supported.
• CDRS gives higher precedence to preventing violations of anti-affinity rules than violations of
• DIt is not possible to create an affinity rule that conflicts with the other rules being used.

• A
  60% (32)
• B
  13% (7)
• D
  26% (14)

Explanation

When you create a VM-Host affinity rule, its ability to function in relation to other rules is not checked. So, it is possible for you to create a rule that conflicts with the other rules you are using. When two VM-Host affinity rules conflict, the older one takes precedence and the newer rule is disabled. DRS only tries to satisfy enabled rules and disabled rules are ignored. DRS, vSphere HA, and vSphere DPM never take any action that results in the violation of required affinity rules (those where the virtual machine DRS group must run on or must not run on the host DRS group). Accordingly, you should exercise caution when using this type of rule because of its potential to adversely affect the functioning of the cluster. If improperly used, required VM-Host affinity rules can fragment the cluster and inhibit the proper functioning of DRS, vSphere HA, and vSphere 55/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.vmware.vsphere.resmgmt.doc %2FGUID-793013E2-0976-43B7- 9A00-340FA76859D0.html

No community discussion yet for this question.