MENU
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.)
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.
===========