ESXi hosts with 10Gbps network cards are attached to a distributed switch. The administrator has upgraded to
NIOC3 and wants to allow vMotion traffic to use as much bandwidth as possible but must ensure that other
services always have sufficient bandwidth.
How can this be done?
A.
Configure shares on the distributed switch for the vMotion traffic type.
B.
Configure limits on the distributed switch on the on vMotion traffic type.
C.
Associate vMotion traffic with a network resource pool and use CoS tagging.
D.
Set shares on user-defined network resource pool and associate it with vMotion traffic.
A – OK
NIOC3
Bandwidth Allocation for System Traffic
You can configure Network I/O Control to allocate certain amount of bandwidth for traffic generated by vSphere Fault Tolerance, iSCSI storage, vSphere vMotion, and so on.
https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/6.5/com.vmware.vsphere.networking.doc/GUID-491C1690-D32E-4940-AEA0-6E1C65D36B93.html
1
0
Why not B, as you have to ensure other types of traffic have enough BW to go through, and with share you just set priority? (IMO it is a mix of A and B that would reach this goal, high share and limit, but we must pick one)
0
0
A limit is a cap. It will not ensure “enough” resources, but it will make sure that it cannot go above the defined limit.
I believe the answer is A
0
0
Exactly, so you limit vMotion traffic to let the other types of traffic have sufficient BW. As I said, I would configure Limit and share to vmotion so it would have priority over others but with limitations, but we have to pick one… =\
0
1
A
A limit is an upper bound or cap, but a share value is a “relative importance”…
So shares can raise the importance of vMotion traffic against other traffic types and if done correctly it wouldn’t starve the other services. The question doesn’t say it wants to set an upper bound. It wants to allow “as much as possible” to vMotion. Shares are only enforced when there is resource contention so if there is no contention then vMotion can have it all. That wouldn’t be possible with a limit.
I can see where you come from, but I’m sticking with A.
0
0
I also think it’s A. I tested it myself and I cannot see a use case were answer D would be the right thing to do here.
0
0
A
0
0
Agree with A
0
0
What’s more, some new 140Q VMWare 2V0-622D dumps are available here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-ob6L_QjGLpQUtYaUMtSmlBUHM
Best Regards!
0
1
D is the correct answer.
A is wrong because shares cannot be defined directly on VDS. For that, NIOC must be enabled and a respective network resource pool setup / configured.
0
0