Broadcom-VMware
2V0-622 · Question #202
2V0-622 Question #202: Real Exam Question with Answer & Explanation
The correct answer is A: When two VM-VM affinity rules conflict, the older one takes precedence and the newer rule is. DRS affinity rule conflicts are resolved by keeping the older rule active and disabling the newer one, while anti-affinity rules carry higher enforcement priority than affinity rules.
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.
Explanation
DRS affinity rule conflicts are resolved by keeping the older rule active and disabling the newer one, while anti-affinity rules carry higher enforcement priority than affinity rules.
Common mistakes.
- B. VM-VM affinity rules are supported when using the 'Specify Failover Hosts' admission control policy; it is VM-Host affinity rules that can cause complications with certain admission control configurations, not VM-VM rules.
- D. vSphere DRS allows administrators to create affinity rules that conflict with existing ones; it detects the conflict after creation and disables the newer rule automatically rather than blocking rule creation entirely.
Concept tested. DRS VM-VM affinity rule conflict resolution and precedence
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.