nerdexam
Broadcom-VMware

2V0-621 · Question #202

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

The correct answer is A. When two VM-VM affinity rules conflict, the older one takes precedence and the newer rule is C. DRS gives higher precedence to preventing violations of anti-affinity rules than violations of. DRS affinity rule conflict resolution gives precedence to older rules and prioritizes anti-affinity constraints over affinity constraints.

Section 5 – Administer and Protect vSphere 6.x Resources

Question

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

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.

How the community answered

(44 responses)
  • A
    70% (31)
  • B
    11% (5)
  • D
    18% (8)

Why each option

DRS affinity rule conflict resolution gives precedence to older rules and prioritizes anti-affinity constraints over affinity constraints.

AWhen two VM-VM affinity rules conflict, the older one takes precedence and the newer rule isCorrect

When two VM-VM affinity rules conflict, DRS disables the newer rule and retains the older rule as active, since the older rule was established first and takes precedence.

BUsing Specify Failover Hosts admission control policy, VM-VM affinity rules are not supported.

The Specify Failover Hosts admission control policy does support VM-VM affinity rules; it is the Dedicated Failover Hosts policy that imposes restrictions, and even then the limitation is on placement not rule support entirely.

CDRS gives higher precedence to preventing violations of anti-affinity rules than violations ofCorrect

DRS treats anti-affinity rules as higher priority than affinity rules, meaning it will sacrifice keeping VMs together before it will place VMs on the same host in violation of a separation rule.

DIt is not possible to create an affinity rule that conflicts with the other rules being used.

It is entirely possible to create conflicting affinity rules in vSphere - DRS resolves the conflict by disabling the newer rule rather than preventing its creation.

Concept tested: DRS VM-VM affinity rule conflict precedence behavior

Source: https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/8.0/vsphere-resource-management/GUID-FF28F29C-8B67-4EFF-A2EF-63B3537E6934.html

Topics

#DRS affinity rules#VM-VM affinity#rule precedence#admission control

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Sign up to join the discussion
Full 2V0-621 Practice