A vSphere Administrator observes that the Primary VM configured with Fault Tolerance is executing slowly. After further investigation, it is determined that the Secondary VM is on an overcommitted ESXi host.
What two methods will correct the problem? (Choose two.)
A. Use Storage vMotion to migrate the Secondary VM to another datastore.
B. Use vMotion to migrate the Secondary VM to a different ESXi host.
C. Configure a CPU limit on the Primary VM which will also apply to the Secondary VM.
D. Turn off and turn on FT in order to recreate the Secondary VM on a different datastore.
The link does not help (me) in this matter.
D does not make sense, because it states datastore and the question is about an overcommitted ESXi host.
Point nr 2 in the link seems to relate to this answer D, However, point nr 2 refers to storage issues and this is not the issue in the examquestion.
If this were a real exam right now i would go for answers : B and C.
I would choose C because it looks practical and i do realise setting a limit is not mentioned on the VMware site as a solution.
But because the whole question with answers is so confusing, i revert to my own experience with VMware, hence B and C.
https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/6.5/com.vmware.vsphere.troubleshooting.doc/GUID-C714CA33-13B9-41CE-A4BE-BFCA5C0C134E.html
I agree with you completely.
But, limit is different from reservation. so if any answer mentioned with reservation, that would be second answer.
however there is no any answer with reservation mentioning
the only second option which is somewhat do justice is D.
the question is not framed correctly
B,D
This is the link explaining it for 6.5
https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/6.5/com.vmware.vsphere.troubleshooting.doc/GUID-C714CA33-13B9-41CE-A4BE-BFCA5C0C134E.html
D Recreating FT will use DRS to place secondary on a better host
I think in the option ‘D’, instead of “different ESXi Host”, ‘Different datastore” is mentioned. If the option is correct with different ESXi host , than option ‘D’ is correct.
B, C is correct.
For FT networking contention, use vMotion technology to move the Secondary VM to a host with fewer FT VMs contending on the FT network. Verify that the quality of the storage access to the VM is not asymmetric.
To resolve a CPU resources problem, set an explicit CPU reservation for the Primary VM at an MHz value sufficient to run its workload at the desired performance level. This reservation is applied to both the Primary and Secondary VMs, ensuring that both VMs can execute at a specified rate. For guidance in setting this reservation, view the performance graphs of the virtual machine (before Fault Tolerance was enabled) to see how many CPU resources it used under normal conditions.
Reference:
https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/6.7/com.vmware.vsphere.vsan-planning.doc/GUID-D68890D8-841A-4BD1-ACA1-DA3D25B6A37A.html
https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/6.0/com.vmware.vsphere.troubleshooting.doc/GUID-C714CA33-13B9-41CE-A4BE-BFCA5C0C134E.html
How can D be correct. Problem is of over committed ESXi Host. D talks about recreating on a different datastore, by resetting FT
In the recreation process, DRS will place the VM to less consumed ESXi host.
Fair enough, but why would the question try to confuse by saying datastore instead of just saying “recreate the VM”.
I will look into this more, for my own comfort.
I am truly wondering if the people who create these questions would deliberately try to throw us off guard.
INitially when i saw the question my gut (and experience) told me B and C were correct.
which is correct?
B,C
To resolve this problem, set an explicit CPU reservation for the Primary VM at a MHz value sufficient to run its workload at the desired performance level. This reservation is applied to both the Primary and Secondary VMs ensuring that both are able to execute at a specified rate.
B,D . CPU reservation is not the same with CPU limit.