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.

Reference:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Workload Domain

Design)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Isolation and Sizing)