Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

VMware 3V0-25.25 Exam - Topic 3 Question 1 Discussion

How should the Global Managers (GMs) and Local Managers (LMs) be distributed to ensure high availability and optimal performance in a multi-site NSX Federation deployment comprised of three sites? (Choose two.)
A) Each NSX site must have its own LM cluster that reports to the GM. and D) The GM cluster should be deployed across three sites.
B) LMs are only needed on the primary site. Secondary sites can manage their local data plane directly via the GM.
C) LMs should only be deployed as single nodes to reduce overhead.
E) The GM should be a single appliance placed in a central cloud environment to simplify connectivity, relying on vSphere HA for availability.

VMware 3V0-25.25 Exam - Topic 3 Question 1 Discussion

Actual exam question for VMware's 3V0-25.25 exam
Question #: 1
Topic #: 3
[All 3V0-25.25 Questions]

How should the Global Managers (GMs) and Local Managers (LMs) be distributed to ensure high availability and optimal performance in a multi-site NSX Federation deployment comprised of three sites? (Choose two.)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A, D

Comprehensive and Detailed 250 to 350 words of Explanation From VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) documents:

In a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) Federation deployment across multiple sites, the management architecture is designed to provide 'Global Visibility' while maintaining 'Local Autonomy.' This is achieved through the coordinated distribution of Global Managers (GMs) and Local Managers (LMs).

For a three-site deployment, NSX Federation best practices mandate that each site maintains its own Local Manager (LM) Cluster (Option A). The LM is responsible for the site-specific control plane, communicating with local Transport Nodes (ESXi and Edges) to program the data plane. If the connection to the GM is lost, the LM ensures the local site continues to function normally. For production environments, these must be clusters (typically 3 nodes) rather than single nodes to ensure local management remains available.

To protect the Global Manager itself---which is the source of truth for all global networking and security policies---the GM cluster should be stretched across the three sites (Option D). In a standard 3-node GM cluster, placing one node at each site ensures that the Federation management plane can survive the complete failure of an entire site. This 'stretched' cluster configuration provides a high level of resilience and ensures that an administrator can still manage global policies from any surviving location.

Option B is incorrect because the GM does not communicate directly with the data plane of a site; it must go through an LM. Option C is a risk to availability. Option E is incorrect because vSphere HA cannot protect against a site-wide disaster, and a single appliance represents a significant single point of failure for the entire global network configuration.

===========


Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Regenia
26 days ago
GM across three sites is the way to go!
upvoted 0 times
...
Olga
1 month ago
Surprised to see the option about a single GM appliance!
upvoted 0 times
...
Laine
1 month ago
I disagree, LMs on just the primary site sounds risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corinne
1 month ago
Each site needs its own LM cluster for sure!
upvoted 0 times
...
Minna
2 months ago
I recall that having a single GM could create a single point of failure, so option E seems risky to me. I think we need a more distributed approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Teri
2 months ago
I practiced a similar question where deploying GMs across multiple sites was crucial for redundancy, so I feel like option D could be a good choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nelida
2 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think LMs might be necessary at all sites, not just the primary one. That makes option B seem questionable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jamika
2 months ago
I remember that each site needs its own LM cluster to manage local resources effectively, so I think option A makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laticia
2 months ago
I recall something about minimizing single points of failure, so I’m hesitant about option E with just one GM appliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marya
2 months ago
I practiced a similar question, and I feel like having the GM across all sites could help with performance, so maybe option D is right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chan
3 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think LMs might be necessary on all sites for proper management.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodrigo
3 months ago
I remember that each site needs its own LM cluster, so I think option A makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel