Question # 1
| Which statement defines the purpose of Technical Requirements? | | A. Technical requirements define which goals and objectives can be achieved.
| | B. Technical requirements define what goals and objectives need to be achieved.
| | C. Technical requirements define which audience needs to be involved.
| | D. Technical requirements define how the goals and objectives can be achieved. |
D. Technical requirements define how the goals and objectives can be achieved.
Explanation: In VMware’s design methodology, as outlined in the VMware Cloud
Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide, requirements are categorized into Business
Requirements(high-level organizational goals) and Technical Requirements(specific
system capabilities or constraints to achieve those goals). Technical Requirements bridge
the gap between what the business wants and how the solution delivers it. Let’s evaluate
each option:
Option A: Technical requirements define which goals and objectives can be
achieved This suggests Technical Requirements determine feasibility, which aligns more
with a scoping or assessment phase, not their purpose. VMware documentation positions
Technical Requirements as implementation-focused, not evaluative.
Option B: Technical requirements define what goals and objectives need to be
achieved This describes Business Requirements, which outline “what” the organization
aims to accomplish (e.g., reduce costs, improve uptime). Technical Requirements specify
“how” these are realized, making this incorrect.
Option C: Technical requirements define which audience needs to be involved
Audience involvement relates to stakeholder identification, not Technical Requirements.
The VCF 5.2 Design Guideties Technical Requirements to system functionality, not
personnel.
Option D: Technical requirements define how the goals and objectives can be
achievedThis is correct. Technical Requirements detail the system’s capabilities,
constraints, and configurations (e.g., “support 10,000 users,” “use AES-256 encryption”) to
meet business goals. TheVCF 5.2Architectural Guide defines them as the “how”—specific,
measurable criteria enabling the solution’s implementation.
Conclusion: Option D accurately reflects the purpose of Technical Requirements in VCF
5.2, focusing on the means to achieve business objectives. References:-
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Section on
Requirements Classification.
-
VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Design Guide(docs.vmware.com): Business vs. Technical
Requirements.
Question # 2
| An architect has come up with a list of design decisions after a workshop with the business
stakeholders. Which design decision describes a logical design decision? | | A. Asynchronous storage replication that satisfies a recovery point objective (RPO) of
15min between site A and B
| | B. Both sites A and B will have a /16 dedicated network subnets.
| | C. End users will interact with application server hosted in Site A
| | D. End users should always experience instantaneous application response |
A. Asynchronous storage replication that satisfies a recovery point objective (RPO) of
15min between site A and B
Question # 3
A VMware Cloud Foundation multi-AZ (Availability Zone) design mandates that:
All availability zones must operate independently of each other.
The availability SLA must adhere to no less than 99.9%.
What would be the three design decisions that would help satisfy those requirements?
(Choose three.) | | A. Configure array-based replication between the selected AZ(s) for the management
domain
| | B. Make sure all configuration backups are replicated between the selected AZ(s)
| | C. Make sure the recovery VLAN for the infrastructure management components has
access to both AZ(s)
| | D. Choose two distant AZ(s) and consider each AZ the DR for the other
| | E. Choose two close proximity AZ(s) and configure a stretched management workload
domain
|
A. Configure array-based replication between the selected AZ(s) for the management
domain
B. Make sure all configuration backups are replicated between the selected AZ(s)
Explanation: This scenario involves a VCF multi-AZ design where AZs must operate
independently (no shared dependencies) and achieve a 99.9% availability SLA (allowing
~8.76 hours of downtime annually). The design decisions must ensure resilience, fault
isolation, and recovery capabilities across AZs.
Requirement Analysis:-
Independent AZ operation: Each AZ must function standalone, with no single point of
failure or dependency across AZs.
-
99.9% availability: The design must minimize downtime through redundancy, replication,
and recovery mechanisms.
Option Analysis:
A. Configure array-based replication between the selected AZ(s) for the management
domain: Array-based replication (e.g., vSphere Replication or SAN replication) for the
management domain (vCenter, NSX Manager, SDDC Manager) ensures that critical
management VMs are duplicated across AZs. If one AZ fails, the other can take over with
minimal downtime, supporting independent operation and high availability. The VCF 5.2
Design Guide recommends replication for multi-AZ deployments to meet SLAs, as it
provides a recovery point objective (RPO) near zero. This option enhances availability and
is correct.
B. Make sure all configuration backups are replicated between the selected AZ(s):
Replicating configuration backups (e.g., SDDC Manager backups, NSX configurations)
ensures that each AZ has access to recovery data. If an AZ’s management components
fail, the other AZ can restore operations independently using its local backup copy. This
supports the independence requirement and reduces downtime (contributing to 99.9%
SLA) by enabling quick recovery. The VCF Administration Guide emphasizes backup
replication for multi-AZ resilience, making this option correct.
C. Make sure the recovery VLAN for the infrastructure management components has
access to both AZ(s):A recovery VLAN spanning both AZs implies a shared network
dependency. If this VLAN fails (e.g., due to a network outage), both AZs could be
impacted, violating the independence requirement. Multi-AZ designs in VCF favor isolated
networks per AZ to avoid cross-AZ single points of failure. The VCF Design Guide advises
against shared VLANs for critical components in independent AZ setups. This option
undermines the requirements and is incorrect.
D. Choose two distant AZ(s) and consider each AZ the DR for the other: Distant AZs
(e.g., separate data centers) with mutual DR (disaster recovery) roles enhance geographic
fault tolerance. However, “operate independently” in VCF typically means each AZ can run
workloads standalone, not that one is a passive DR site. Distant AZs introduce latency,
complicating synchronous replication needed for 99.9% availability, and may rely on shared
management, conflicting with independence. The VCF Multi-AZ Guide focuses on active AZs, not DR-centric designs, making this less suitable.
E. Choose two close proximity AZ(s) and configure a stretched management
workload domain: A stretched management domain (e.g., using vSAN stretched cluster)
spans AZs with synchronous replication, ensuring high availability. However, this creates a
dependency: both AZs share the same vCenter and management stack, so a failure (e.g.,
vCenter outage) could affect both, violating independence. The VCF 5.2 Design Guide
notes stretched clusters are for single logical domains, not independent AZs. This option
contradicts the requirement and is incorrect.
F. Configure a non-routable separate recovery VLAN for the infrastructure
management components within each AZ:A non-routable, AZ-specific recovery VLAN
isolates management recovery traffic (e.g., for vMotion, backups) within each AZ. This
ensures that each AZ’s management components operate independently, with no cross-AZ
network reliance. If one AZ’s network fails, the other remains unaffected, supporting the
SLA through fault isolation. The VCF Multi-AZ Design Guide recommends separate,
isolated networks per AZ for resilience, making this option correct.
Conclusion: The three design decisions are Configure array-based replication between
the selected AZ(s) for the management domain (A),Make sure all configuration
backups are replicated between the selected AZ(s) (B), and Configure a non-routable
separate recovery VLAN for the infrastructure management components within each
AZ (F). These ensure independent operation and meet the 99.9% SLA through replication
and isolation.
Question # 4
A company plans to expand its existing VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) environment for a
new application. The current VCF environment includes a Management Domain and two
separate VI Workload Domains with different hardware profiles. The new application has
the following requirements:
-
The application will use significantly more memory than current workloads.
-
The application will have a limited number of licenses to run on hosts.
-
Additional VCF and hardware costs have been approved for the application.
-
The application will contain confidential customer information that requires isolation from
other workloads.
What design recommendation should the architect document? | | A. Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements
of the new application.
| | B. Deploy a new consolidated VCF instance and deploy the new application into it.
| | C. Purchase sufficient matching hardware to meet the new application’s memory
requirements and expand an existing cluster to accommodate the new application. Use
host affinity rules to manage the new licensing.
| | D. Order enough identical hardware for the Management Domain to meet the new
application requirements and design a new Workload Domain for the application. |
A. Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements
of the new application.
Explanation: In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, expanding an existing environment
for a new application involves balancing resource needs, licensing, cost, and security. The
requirements—high memory, limited licenses, approved budget, and isolation—guide the
design. Let’s evaluate:
Option A: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory
requirements of the new application
This is correct. A new VI Workload Domain (minimum 3-4 hosts, depending on vSAN HA)
can be tailored to the application’s high memory needs with new hardware. Isolation is
achieved by dedicating the domain to the application, separating it from existing workloads
(e.g., via NSX segmentation). Limited licenses can be managed by sizing the domain to
match the license count (e.g., 4 hosts if licensed for 4),and the approved budget supports
this. This aligns with VCF’s Standard architecture for workload separation and scalability.
Option B: Deploy a new consolidated VCF instance and deploy the new application
into it
This is incorrect. A consolidated VCF instance runs management and workloads on a
single cluster (4-8 hosts), mixing the new application with management components. This
violates the isolation requirement for confidential data, as management and application
workloads share infrastructure. It also overcomplicates licensing and memory allocation,
and a new instance exceeds the intent of “expanding” the existing environment.
Option C: Purchase sufficient matching hardware to meet the new application’s
memory requirements and expand an existing cluster to accommodate the new
application. Use host affinity rules to manage the new licensing
This is incorrect. Expanding an existing VI Workload Domain cluster with matching
hardware (to maintain vSAN compatibility) could meet memory needs, and DRS affinity
rules could pin the application to licensed hosts. However, mixing the new application with
existing workloads in the same domain compromises isolation for confidential data. NSX
segmentation helps, but a shared cluster increases risk, making this less secure than a
dedicated domain.
Option D: Order enough identical hardware for the Management Domain to meet the
new application requirements and design a new Workload Domain for the
application
This is incorrect. Upgrading the Management Domain (minimum 4 hosts) with high-memory
hardware for the application is illogical—management domains host SDDC Manager,
vCenter, etc., not user workloads. A new Workload Domain is feasible, but tying it to
Management Domain hardware mismatches the VCF architecture (Management and VI
domains have distinct roles). This misinterprets the requirement and wastes resources.
Conclusion: The architect should recommend A: Implement a new Workload Domain
with hardware supporting the memory requirements of the new application. This
meets all requirements—memory, licensing (via domain sizing), budget (approved costs),
and isolation (dedicated domain)—within VCF 5.2’s Standard architecture.
Question # 5
As part of the requirement gathering phase, an architect identified the following
requirement for the newly deployed SDDC environment:
Reduce the network latency between two application virtual machines.
To meet the application owner's goal, which design decision should be included in the
design? | | A. Configure a Storage DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on the same
datastore.
| | B. Configure a DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on the same ESXi host.
| | C. Configure a DRS rule to separate the application virtual machines to different ESXi
hosts.
| | D. Configure a Storage DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on different
datastores. |
B. Configure a DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on the same ESXi host.
Explanation: The requirement is to reduce network latency between two application virtual
machines (VMs) in a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 SDDC environment. Network
latency is influenced by the physical distance and network hops between VMs. In a
vSphere environment (core to VCF), VMs on the same ESXi host communicate via the
host’s virtual switch (vSwitch or vDS), avoiding physical network traversal, which minimizes
latency. Let’s evaluate each option:
Option A: Configure a Storage DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on
the same datastoreStorage DRS manages datastore usage and VM placement based on
storage I/O and capacity, not network latency. ThevSphere Resource Management Guide
notes that Storage DRS rules (e.g., VMaffinity) affect storage location, not host placement.
Two VMs on the same datastore could still reside on different hosts, requiring network
communication over physical links (e.g., 10GbE), which doesn’t inherently reduce latency.
Option B: Configure a DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on the same
ESXi hostDRS (Distributed Resource Scheduler) controls VM placement across hosts for
load balancing and can enforce affinity rules. A “keep together” affinity rule ensures the two
VMs run on the same ESXi host, where communication occurs via the host’s internal
vSwitch, bypassing physical network latency (typically <1μs vs. milliseconds over a LAN).
TheVCF 5.2 Architectural GuideandvSphere Resource Management Guiderecommend this
for latency-sensitive applications, directly meeting the requirement.
Option C: Configure a DRS rule to separate the application virtual machines to
different ESXi hostsA DRS anti-affinity rule forces VMs onto different hosts, increasing
network latency as traffic must traverse the physical network (e.g., switches, routers). This
contradicts the goal of reducing latency, making it unsuitable.
Option D: Configure a Storage DRS rule to keep the application virtual machines on
different datastoresA Storage DRS anti-affinity rule separates VMs across datastores, but
this affects storage placement, not host location. VMs on different datastores could still be
on different hosts, increasing network latency over physical links. This doesn’t address the
requirement, per thevSphere Resource Management Guide.
Conclusion: Option B is the correct design decision. A DRS affinity rule ensures the VMs
share the same host, minimizing network latency by leveraging intra-host communication,
aligning with VCF 5.2 best practices for latency-sensitive workloads.
Question # 6
| When determining the compute capacity for a VMware Cloud Foundation VI Workload
Domain, which three elements should be considered when calculating usable resources?
(Choose three.) | | A. vSAN space efficiency feature enablement
| | B. VM swap file
| | C. Disk capacity per VM
| | D. Number of 10GbE NICs per VM
| | E. CPU/Cores per VM
|
A. vSAN space efficiency feature enablement
B. VM swap file
E. CPU/Cores per VM
Explanation: When determining the compute capacity for a VMware Cloud Foundation
(VCF) VI Workload Domain, the goal is to calculate the usable resources available to
support virtual machines (VMs) and their workloads. This involves evaluating the physical
compute resources (CPU, memory, storage) and accounting for overheads, efficiency
features, and configurations that impact resource availability. Below, each option is
analyzed in the context of VCF 5.2, with a focus on official documentation and architectural
considerations:
A. vSAN space efficiency feature enablementThis is a critical element to consider.
VMware Cloud Foundation often uses vSAN as the primary storage for VI Workload
Domains. vSAN offers space efficiency features such as deduplication, compression, and
erasure coding (RAID-5/6). When enabled, these features reduce the physical storage
capacity required for VM data, directly impacting the usable storage resources available for
compute workloads. For example, deduplication and compression can significantly
increase usable capacity by eliminating redundant data, while erasure coding trades off
some capacity for fault tolerance. The VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and
Preparation documentation emphasizes the need to account for vSAN policies and
efficiency features when sizing storage, as they influence the effective capacity available
for VMs. Thus, this is a key factor in compute capacity planning.
B. VM swap fileThe VM swap file is an essential consideration for compute capacity,
particularly for memory resources. In VMware vSphere (a core component of VCF), each
powered-on VM requires a swap file equal to thesize of its configured memory minus any
memory reservation. This swap file is stored on the datastore (often vSAN in VCF) and
consumes storage capacity. When calculating usable resources, you must account for this
overhead, as it reduces the available storage for other VM data (e.g., virtual disks).
Additionally, if memory overcommitment is used, the swap file size can significantly impact
capacity planning. The VMware Cloud Foundation Design Guide and vSphere
documentation highlight the importance of factoring in VM swap file overhead when
determining resource availability, making this a valid element to consider.
C. Disk capacity per VMWhile disk capacity per VM is important for storage sizing, it is not
directly a primary factor in calculatingusable compute resourcesfor a VI Workload Domain
in the context of this question. Disk capacity per VM is a workload-specific requirement that
contributes to overall storage demand, but it does not inherently determine the usable CPU
or memory resources of the domain. In VCF, storage capacity is typically managed by
vSAN or other supported storage solutions, and while it must be sufficient to accommodate
all VMs, it is a secondary consideration compared to CPU, memory, and efficiency features
when focusing on compute capacity. Official documentation, such as the VCF 5.2
Administration Guide, separates storage sizing from compute resource planning, so this is
not one of the top three elements here.
D. Number of 10GbE NICs per VMThe number of 10GbE NICs per VM relates to
networking configuration rather than compute capacity (CPU and memory resources).
While networking is crucial for VM performance and connectivity in a VI Workload Domain,
it does not directly influence the calculation of usable compute resources like CPU cores or
memory. In VCF 5.2, networking design (e.g., NSX or vSphere networking) ensures
sufficient bandwidth and NICs at the host level, but per-VM NIC counts are a design detail
rather than a capacity determinant. The VMware Cloud Foundation Design Guide focuses
NIC considerations on host-level design, not VM-level compute capacity, so this is not a
relevant element here.
E. CPU/Cores per VMThis is a fundamental element in compute capacity planning. The
number of CPU cores assigned to each VM directly affects how many VMs can be
supported by the physical CPU resources in the VI Workload Domain. In VCF, compute
capacity is based on the total number of physical CPU cores across all ESXi hosts, with a
minimum of 16 cores per CPU required for licensing (as per the VCF 5.2 Release Notes
and licensing documentation). When calculating usable resources, you must consider how
many cores are allocated per VM, factoring in overcommitment ratios and workload
demands. The VCF Planning and Preparation Workbook explicitly includes CPU/core
allocation as a key input for sizing compute resources, making this a critical factor.
F. Number of VMsWhile the total number of VMs is a key input for overall capacity
planning, it is not a direct element in calculatingusable compute resources. Instead, it is a
derived outcome based on the available CPU, memory, and storage resources after
accounting for overheads and per-VM allocations. The VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2
documentation (e.g., Capacity Planning for Management and Workload Domains) uses the
number of VMs as a planning target, not a determinant of usable capacity. Thus, it is not
one of the top three elements for this specific calculation.
Conclusion: The three elements that should be considered when calculating usable
compute resources arevSAN space efficiency feature enablement (A),VM swap file (B)
, andCPU/Cores per VM (E). These directly impact the effective CPU, memory, and
storage resources available for VMs in a VI Workload Domain.
Question # 7
An architect is designing a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF)-based solution for a customer
with the following requirement:
The solution must not have any single points of failure.
To meet this requirement, the architect has decided to incorporate physical NIC teaming for
all vSphere host servers. When documenting this design decision, which consideration
should the architect make? | | A. Embedded NICs should be avoided for NIC teaming.
| | B. Only 10GbE NICs should be utilized for NIC teaming.
| | C. Each NIC team must comprise NICs from the same physical NIC card.
| | D. Each NIC team must comprise NICs from different physical NIC cards. |
D. Each NIC team must comprise NICs from different physical NIC cards.
Explanation: In VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2, designing a solution with no single points
of failure (SPOF) requires careful consideration of redundancy across all components,
including networking. Physical NIC teaming on vSphere hosts is a common technique to
ensure network availability by aggregating multiple networkinterface cards (NICs) to
provide failover and load balancing. The architect’s decision to use NIC teaming aligns with
this goal, but the specific consideration for implementation must maximize fault tolerance.
Requirement Analysis:
No single points of failure:The networking design must ensure that the failure of any
single hardware component (e.g., a NIC, cable, switch, or NIC card) does not disrupt
connectivity to the vSphere hosts.
Physical NIC teaming:This involves configuring multiple NICs into a team (typically via
vSphere’s vSwitch or Distributed Switch) to provide redundancy and potentially increased
bandwidth.
Option Analysis:
A. Embedded NICs should be avoided for NIC teaming:Embedded NICs (integrated on
the server motherboard) are commonly used in VCF deployments and are fully supported
for NIC teaming. While they may have limitations (e.g., fewer ports or lower speeds
compared to add-on cards), there is no blanket requirement in VCF 5.2 or vSphere to avoid
them for teaming. The VMware Cloud Foundation Design Guide and vSphere Networking
documentation do not prohibit embedded NICs; instead, they emphasize redundancy and
performance. This consideration is not a must and does not directly address SPOF, so it’s
incorrect.
B. Only 10GbE NICs should be utilized for NIC teaming:While 10GbE NICs are
recommended in VCF 5.2 for performance (especially for vSAN and NSX traffic), there is
no strict requirement thatonly10GbE NICs be used for teaming. VCF supports 1GbE or
higher, depending on workload needs, as long as redundancy is maintained. The
requirement here is about eliminating SPOF, not mandating a specific NIC speed. For
example, teaming two 1GbE NICs could still provide failover. This option is too restrictive
and not directly tied to the SPOF concern, making it incorrect.
C. Each NIC team must comprise NICs from the same physical NIC card:If a NIC team
consists of NICs from the same physical NIC card (e.g., a dual-port NIC), the failure of that
single card (e.g., hardware failure or driver issue) would disable all NICs in the team,
creating a single point of failure. This defeats the purpose of teaming for redundancy.
VMware best practices, as outlined in the vSphere Networking Guide and VCF Design
Guide, recommend distributing NICs across different physical cards or sources (e.g., one
from an embedded NIC and one from an add-on card) to avoid this risk. This option
increases SPOF risk and is incorrect.
D. Each NIC team must comprise NICs from different physical NIC cards:This is the
optimal design consideration for eliminating SPOF. By ensuring that each NIC team
includes NICs from different physical NIC cards (e.g., one from an embedded NIC and one
from a PCIe NIC card), the failure of any single NIC card does not disrupt connectivity, as
the other NIC (on a separate card) remains operational. This aligns with VMware’s highavailability
best practices for vSphere and VCF, where physical separation of NICs
enhances fault tolerance. The VCF 5.2 Design Guide specifically advises using multiple
NICs from different hardware sources for redundancy in management, vSAN, and VM
traffic. This option directly addresses the requirement and is correct.
Conclusion:The architect should document thateach NIC team must comprise NICs
from different physical NICcards (D)to ensure no single point of failure. This design
maximizes network redundancy by protecting against the failure of any single NIC card,
aligning with VCF’s high-availability principles.
VMware 2V0-13.24 Exam Dumps
5 out of 5
Pass Your VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam Exam in First Attempt With 2V0-13.24 Exam Dumps. Real VCP-VCF Architect Exam Questions As in Actual Exam!
— 90 Questions With Valid Answers
— Updation Date : 15-Apr-2025
— Free 2V0-13.24 Updates for 90 Days
— 98% VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam Exam Passing Rate
PDF Only Price 49.99$
19.99$
Buy PDF
Speciality
Additional Information
Testimonials
Related Exams
- Number 1 VMware VCP-VCF Architect study material online
- Regular 2V0-13.24 dumps updates for free.
- VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam Practice exam questions with their answers and explaination.
- Our commitment to your success continues through your exam with 24/7 support.
- Free 2V0-13.24 exam dumps updates for 90 days
- 97% more cost effective than traditional training
- VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam Practice test to boost your knowledge
- 100% correct VCP-VCF Architect questions answers compiled by senior IT professionals
VMware 2V0-13.24 Braindumps
Realbraindumps.com is providing VCP-VCF Architect 2V0-13.24 braindumps which are accurate and of high-quality verified by the team of experts. The VMware 2V0-13.24 dumps are comprised of VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam questions answers available in printable PDF files and online practice test formats. Our best recommended and an economical package is VCP-VCF Architect PDF file + test engine discount package along with 3 months free updates of 2V0-13.24 exam questions. We have compiled VCP-VCF Architect exam dumps question answers pdf file for you so that you can easily prepare for your exam. Our VMware braindumps will help you in exam. Obtaining valuable professional VMware VCP-VCF Architect certifications with 2V0-13.24 exam questions answers will always be beneficial to IT professionals by enhancing their knowledge and boosting their career.
Yes, really its not as tougher as before. Websites like Realbraindumps.com are playing a significant role to make this possible in this competitive world to pass exams with help of VCP-VCF Architect 2V0-13.24 dumps questions. We are here to encourage your ambition and helping you in all possible ways. Our excellent and incomparable VMware VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam exam questions answers study material will help you to get through your certification 2V0-13.24 exam braindumps in the first attempt.
Pass Exam With VMware VCP-VCF Architect Dumps. We at Realbraindumps are committed to provide you VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam braindumps questions answers online. We recommend you to prepare from our study material and boost your knowledge. You can also get discount on our VMware 2V0-13.24 dumps. Just talk with our support representatives and ask for special discount on VCP-VCF Architect exam braindumps. We have latest 2V0-13.24 exam dumps having all VMware VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam dumps questions written to the highest standards of technical accuracy and can be instantly downloaded and accessed by the candidates when once purchased. Practicing Online VCP-VCF Architect 2V0-13.24 braindumps will help you to get wholly prepared and familiar with the real exam condition. Free VCP-VCF Architect exam braindumps demos are available for your satisfaction before purchase order.
Send us mail if you want to check VMware 2V0-13.24 VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam DEMO before your purchase and our support team will send you in email.
If you don't find your dumps here then you can request what you need and we shall provide it to you.
Bulk Packages
$50
- Get 3 Exams PDF
- Get $33 Discount
- Mention Exam Codes in Payment Description.
Buy 3 Exams PDF
$70
- Get 5 Exams PDF
- Get $65 Discount
- Mention Exam Codes in Payment Description.
Buy 5 Exams PDF
$100
- Get 5 Exams PDF + Test Engine
- Get $105 Discount
- Mention Exam Codes in Payment Description.
Buy 5 Exams PDF + Engine
 Jessica Doe
VCP-VCF Architect
We are providing VMware 2V0-13.24 Braindumps with practice exam question answers. These will help you to prepare your VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam exam. Buy VCP-VCF Architect 2V0-13.24 dumps and boost your knowledge.
|
