VCP-DCV vSphere Architecture, Products and Solutions Practice Question
An administrator configures DRS on a cluster with two hosts. The administrator wants to ensure that two critical VMs (VM1 and VM2) always run on separate hosts. Which rule type should the administrator create?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many exam-takers confuse 'Separate Virtual Machines' (anti-affinity between VMs) with 'Virtual Machines to Hosts – Must not run' (anti-affinity between VMs and specific hosts), leading them to select the wrong rule type for VM-to-VM separation.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Separate Virtual Machines
The 'Separate Virtual Machines' rule (option A) is correct because it explicitly instructs DRS to place VM1 and VM2 on different ESXi hosts, ensuring host-level isolation for availability. This rule type enforces an anti-affinity constraint that DRS respects during initial placement and subsequent load-balancing migrations, preventing both VMs from running on the same host simultaneously.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Separate Virtual Machines
Why this is correct
A Separate Virtual Machines rule enforces anti-affinity, satisfying the stem's requirement that VM1 and VM2 never share a host. DRS honours this during placement and vMotion, keeping the two critical VMs on distinct hosts within the cluster.
- ✗
Virtual Machines to Hosts (Should run)
Why it's wrong here
A 'should run' VM-to-host rule is a soft preference, so DRS may still place both VMs on one host when no better option exists. It is tempting because it names hosts and VMs, and it would be correct for biasing placement towards a preferred host without enforcing it.
- ✗
Keep Virtual Machines Together
Why it's wrong here
Keep Virtual Machines Together enforces co-location, the opposite of the required separation, so DRS would place VM1 and VM2 on the same host. It is tempting because it is a VM-to-VM DRS rule, and it would be correct when two VMs must share a host for licensing or latency reasons.
- ✗
Virtual Machines to Hosts (Must not run)
Why it's wrong here
A VM-to-host rule pins individual VMs to specific hosts, so it cannot express a mutual separation constraint between two VMs. It is tempting because it does control VM placement, and it would be correct for pinning a VM to (or away from) a named host, such as licensing or hardware affinity.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This VCP-DCV question is part of Courseiva's 281-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This VCP-DCV practice question is part of Courseiva's free VMware certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the VCP-DCV exam.