Free VMware 2V0-17.25 Actual Exam Questions

Maybe B could be it since logs often help in discovering services and applications by analyzing activity patterns, unlike A or D which focus more on infrastructure layers.

A imo, vSphere Supervisor gives Kubernetes control which can help with application discovery, not just network. D’s more network-focused, but for full service/app discovery, A feels more complete.

Maybe B, D, and F since Identity Broker could be needed for authentication changes during upgrade.

It’s A, D, and F. Fleet management (A) handles multi-cluster coordination, while Operations (D) and Collector (F) provide monitoring and data collection needed during upgrades. The others are more optional or post-upgrade tools.

Actually, the key is understanding the difference between wait and cancel cycles. The wait cycle delays the alert creation, while cancel cycles count down once the alert is triggered before it auto-cancels. Given 2 wait + 2 cancel cycles, if each cycle is 5 minutes, the total time before auto-cancel is just based on the cancel cycles, so 2 x 5 = 10 minutes, matching option C. The wait cycles don’t add to the auto-cancel time after triggering, they just delay when the alert fires initially.

I’m guessing the cycle time is key here, but if it’s 5 minutes per cycle, then 4 cycles make 20 minutes, which matches D. Does anyone have a source confirming the default cycle duration?

B, because setting inputs at the organization level ensures consistency everywhere.

F imo, because updating all production blueprints is essential. Also, E makes sense for the constants, and C covers the inputs — that way everything stays organized and consistent in production.

B imo, the Provider Management Portal usually handles broader integrations and NPC deployments more smoothly than the API alone, especially for a newly added Organization post-upgrade.

A, since API use is usually needed for complex tasks like onboarding existing VMs.

C imo, the Control Panel in VCF Operations seems designed for import tasks like this, where you want to control exactly what gets pulled in. If it’s got options to filter by date, that fits the question perfectly. B and D both sound plausible but could be less straightforward when it comes to filtering logs specifically newer than 90 days. Since the question highlights that filter, picking the method that gives you more granular control makes sense.

D imo, starting the transfer from Aria Operations sounds like it would let you pick exactly which logs to send, including filtering by date. B might just pull everything without that flexibility.

A/D? A for the actual operations tool, D because NSX is the network base.

A. The feature is called Network Operations in VCF, so the specific operations component (A) seems like the must-have to fully utilize that feature, beyond just the networking layer itself.

A/B? Option A sounds like a solid way to get real site-level resiliency by moving hosts to another data center, but the question says no additional hosts and doesn’t clarify if the other data center can handle six hosts already. Option B mentions VMware Live Recovery, which isn’t a common term for vSAN features I know, so that might be a red flag or something less standard. Since zero RPO means no data loss, just rearranging hosts within a single site (like fault domains in D) won’t help if the whole site goes down. So I’m stuck between A and B here, though A feels more aligned with multi-site

I’m thinking D might be off here because fault domains help with rack or hardware failure inside one site but don’t protect against a full site outage like a power loss. Since the question says a power outage took down the whole data center, just dividing hosts into fault domains inside the same site won’t stop service disruption or meet zero RPO. The other options seem more focused on multi-site or data redundancy. Anyone else see it that way?

Maybe D, because upgrading SDDC Manager first usually unlocks other bundles.

Maybe A, since using an offline repository often restricts the visible upgrade bundles to just the SDDC Manager one, blocking access to others until it's updated.

Maybe D is worth a look here since High Availability generally means having enough resources to handle failover, which increases footprint. A and B are definitely more complex and need more infrastructure, so they’re out. Between C and D, C should be lighter because it skips the failover capacity, so probably C makes most sense for smallest footprint. The question seems focused on resource use, so I’d rule out anything with built-in redundancy like D for this scenario.

Probably C since Simple aims for minimal resource usage without extra HA layers.

It’s B because Istio isn’t just about discovery or routing—it provides a full layer for managing service communication, including security and monitoring, not just basic network stuff like A or D.

It’s B because Istio’s main role is to provide a layer that handles the communication between services in a consistent and observable way. Options A and C are more about Kubernetes features or specific load balancing, and D sounds more like a description of a routing protocol rather than a full service mesh. Istio’s whole point is to structure, secure, and monitor how microservices interact, which aligns best with B.

B imo, because ClusterRoleBinding links a ClusterRole to users or groups cluster-wide. D sounds made-up; I haven’t seen ClusterRoleAccess as a real object in Kubernetes.

B, since RoleBinding is namespace-scoped, ClusterRoleBinding suits cluster-wide permissions.

Maybe B, E, G, and C. The Provider Tier-0 Gateway (B) is definitely a key part of regional setup since it handles routing for that area. Outbound SNAT (E) makes sense to allow VPCs to access external networks without exposing internal IPs. The VPC connectivity profile (G) would be needed to manage how that VPC connects to other components. The DNAT rule (C) could be part of allowing inbound traffic from outside into specific services, which fits with the regional network step. I’m skipping the Transit Gateway (D) here since it’s more about connecting regions or global-level networking.

B/E/G/A - Transit Gateway feels more global than regional to me.

Option A seems right because the VCF Download Tool is designed specifically to gather all required binaries in one place before installation, which fits the no-Internet scenario better than manual downloads.

B vs A, but B ensures direct access to all official binaries before going offline.

I don’t think D is right because API usually refers to interfaces or endpoints, not groups of objects. E seems off too since nodes are more about physical or virtual machines, not logical grouping in Istio. B and C make the most sense because clusters group the infrastructure side, while services group the application workloads, which fits how Istio manages things. The question wording is a bit tricky, but if we consider grouping as logical collections, then these two are the best fits.

Not A, because security is about policies, not grouping objects.