Free VMware 2V0-13.25 Actual Exam Questions

It’s B. The stretched cluster handles zero RPO for management perfectly with that low latency, plus Live Recovery for workloads meets the 24-hour RTO without wasting hardware on standby resources.

B/D? The management domain needs zero RPO, so sync replication like in a stretched cluster makes sense. For workloads with 24-hour RTO, async replication could be enough and save resources. A and C seem less practical here.

The question emphasizes scalability and flexibility with seamless growth, so D is off because combining workload domains into a single cluster defeats isolation and independent scaling, which are key for future-proofing. A and C both rely on single workload domains, which can become bottlenecks as everything grows together. B clearly supports scaling each department independently without impacting others, matching the need for flexibility and smooth transitions when adding new workload domains. Even if management overhead goes up, it’s a tradeoff for better scalability and isolation.

Maybe B. Keeping workload domains separate lets each department scale on its own without affecting others, which fits the scalability and flexibility needs here. Combining clusters like in D could cause bottlenecks.

D, since Provider-managed gives the security team direct control over image approval.

This one feels like C. Local Content Library is all about internal control, so the security team can vet and approve VM images before they’re available for use. Subscribed libraries rely on syncing from a master library, which is more about distribution than initial approval. So for strict review and vetting by security within the same org, C fits better.

Good point on B being a financial lock-in; that’s a classic constraint since it limits choices.

I’d say B is definitely a constraint here since no funding for new storage means the team has to stick with what they have, which really limits options right off the bat. It’s not just a preference; it forces the design to work within that budget restriction, making it a clear constraint.

Maybe B here. Two separate VCF Instances mean you get totally independent environments, which fits the policy for testing patches before production better than just domains or clusters.

A/C? Two domains in one instance (C) might not fully isolate testing from production, risking accidental impact. Two clusters inside one domain (A) seems weaker for isolation, so C feels safer for separate lifecycle management.

Maybe C, because VCF typically uses vSAN and tiered storage policies can isolate tenants effectively, unlike one big datastore or cramming VMs on a single host which would hurt performance.

Not B, running all workloads on one host would create a huge bottleneck and risk of failure. C makes more sense with tiered storage policies balancing performance per tenant in a multi-tenant VCF environment.

C/D, SDDC Manager and NSX are core for multi-AZ sync and networking continuity.

B imo, vCenter is crucial across AZs since it manages the ESXi hosts and workloads directly. Without replicating vCenter, you can’t really coordinate VM operations smoothly during failover. SDDC Manager (C) is important but more for higher-level orchestration, and NSX (D) handles networking, but if you don’t have vCenter replicated, you risk losing management control. So I’d go with B and D for replication here, focusing on both management plane and networking continuity.

I see why D gets a lot of support because business objectives set the stage, but what if the stakeholders don’t have a clear consensus on those goals yet? Starting with option B to drill down on specific product features might reveal practical needs and concerns that shape or even clarify those broader objectives. Also, kicking off with a rigid list like C could box in the conversation too early, and A feels a bit premature without understanding what the stakeholders actually want. Could focusing on product features first make the workshop more productive in capturing real requirements?

Maybe B here. Getting the SMEs to clarify what product features they actually want can help shape the design better than jumping straight into business goals or fixed design docs.

Maybe B makes the most sense because it directly addresses no internet access by having all binaries locally. The other tools seem to rely on some form of transfer that might risk exposing passwords or internet use.

C/D? Bundle Transfer or Download Tool could avoid storing passwords in plain text.

This one feels like D and B as well, but I’m focusing on eliminating the others. A is about security features, not latency, so probably out. C and E relate to vSAN’s storage efficiency, but deduplication and deep snapshots usually add overhead rather than reduce latency. So D for network path optimization and B to speed up storage through memory tiering make the most sense for latency-sensitive workloads here.

It’s D and B, since network and storage speed matter most for latency.

A/C/E fits best—availability at app and network layers plus downtime constraint.

A/C/E? A and C tie directly to the 24/7 availability requirement from different layers, and E makes sense as a constraint related to minimizing downtime during business hours. B is about risk, which feels separate from conceptual requirements or constraints. D actually contradicts the goal of optimizing user experience since site performance should matter. F might be an assumption, but it’s not clearly stated as a conceptual model item tied to the objectives given.

Makes sense, infrastructure caps at 99.9%, so Platinum apps must handle higher SLA themselves—C.

Option C makes sense because the infrastructure can only guarantee 99.9%, so anything needing 99.99% availability has to handle that on the app side. Proactive HA (D) improves recovery but doesn’t guarantee hitting that higher SLA alone. Also, option B about multiple VCF instances might not be practical or even allowed, depending on app distribution, so it’s safer to assume apps themselves need to cover their higher availability needs.

It’s A and C since OS Managed needs agent-based OS metrics, Self-Managed can rely on Service Discovery.

It’s A and B. Self-Managed can use Service Discovery since it’s just VM construct info, no agents needed. Fully Managed needs deeper app and OS monitoring, so Managed Telegraf fits better there.

This one feels like B makes the most sense as the actual mitigation step. Sure, C helps spot the issue, but just knowing about the skill gap doesn’t reduce the risk by itself. You need to do something about it, and training existing staff covers that. Hiring more people (A) or using a third party (D) might help, but they don’t address the assumption directly. So, putting in time and money to upskill the current team is the right move here. B seems like the practical way to handle the risk once you accept it exists.

D imo, because bringing in a third-party company can immediately bridge the skill gap without relying solely on existing staff’s abilities. While assessing skills (C) or training (B) helps in the long term, the question focuses on mitigation of immediate risk, and outsourcing setup or support reduces the dependency on current staff’s skill level. Hiring more staff with the same skills (A) doesn’t fix the underlying problem if those skills aren’t aligned with the new infrastructure. So, D feels like a clear way to manage the risk directly.

Option B and C, because separate ADs need distinct tenants for proper segregation.

B, C. Since each business unit has its own AD, it makes the most sense to map each tenant to its dedicated AD instance (B), keeping authentication clean and isolated. And creating a tenant per business unit (C) aligns with their independent operation and isolation needs. Projects are more for organizing workloads inside tenants, so using tenants for separation here feels right.