A vSAN administrator is planning to deploy a new vSAN cluster with these requirements: - Physical adapters share capacity among several traffic types - Guaranteed bandwidth for vSAN during bandwidth…

Question

Options

• ACreate static routes between the vSAN hosts
• BUse IOPS Limit rules in storage policies
• CUtilize Network I/O Control
• DEnable jumbo frames
• EIsolate vSAN traffic in a VLAN

• A
  13% (3)
• B
  4% (1)
• C
  75% (18)
• D
  8% (2)

Explanation

Network I/O Control (C) directly addresses the bandwidth contention requirement by letting administrators set guaranteed minimum bandwidth reservations for vSAN traffic when physical adapters are shared across multiple traffic types (vMotion, management, vSAN, etc.) - making it the precise tool for that use case. VLAN isolation (E) satisfies the enhanced security requirement by logically separating vSAN traffic from other network traffic, preventing unauthorized access or eavesdropping on storage data.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (Static routes): Static routes handle Layer 3 routing decisions, not bandwidth guarantees or security isolation on shared adapters.
• B (IOPS Limit rules): IOPS limits throttle storage I/O at the policy level, not network bandwidth - they don't help with NIC contention or network security.
• D (Jumbo frames): Jumbo frames (MTU 9000) improve throughput efficiency but provide neither bandwidth guarantees during contention nor security isolation.

Memory tip: Map each requirement to a solution - "shared adapters + guaranteed bandwidth = NIOC" (Network I/O Control is the VMware tool built exactly for multi-traffic NIC sharing), and "security = segmentation = VLAN." If a question mentions bandwidth contention on shared NICs, NIOC is almost always the answer.

No community discussion yet for this question.