VMware Edu & Cert Community
SeanDA
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Network Design - VCAP5-DCD - My thoughts

I'm really confused about the requirements for the network design when using the design tool.

Having not used the tool previously I found it really difficult to use and not very clear as to what I was supposed to be doing....

1. The policies box in the bottom right of the screen??? Do I just drop the policies I would use in the box? Do I not need to configure the policy? If different port groups require different policies, how do I handle such scenarios?

2. If I am using iSCSI /NFS in the design, should I create separate physical switches to connect my iSCSI VMK Ports to? all the examples I see on this forum, seem to use the same physical switches as Management / VMotion / VM Networks etc, but this is not best practice?

3. There is an option to use 'redundant' uplinks. In the context of the design tool, what does that actually mean and when should it be used? Surely if I select an Active link for my Management VMK using an 'Onboard' NIC, and a Standby using an uplink on a PCI based NIC that's still 'redundant'. Does it mean Active / Active (Port id or IP Hash)?

4. Typically in a real-world scenario I wouldn't put all my VMK and VM Networks on a single vSwitch either, but the page is not large enough to easily create multiple vSwitches / dvSwitches

5.  iSCSI / IP Storage uplinks would not typically share a vSwitch with VM Networks they would reside on their own vSwitch and be configured with only One uplink and not a NIC Team. 

Maybe I am over thinking this and over complicating this!

Any thoughts?

7 Replies
JPM300
Commander
Commander

Hey SeanDA,

I sent you a PM

I think a lot of the questions are more of a logical design then a physical design.  A lot of your questions are very valid however they are more detailed then a logical design might do and could fall into the physical design aspect.  This is part of the problem with the DCD as since it is Design and conceptual there is SOOOOOO many ways to tackle these problems.  I would look at every design question with the idea of what the tool offers you as your "constraints"  and you have to do the best design within the constraints.  None the less I felt the same about the exam and had many of the same questions.  Thats why I started building the DCD simulator and have been working with the VMware education team to help improve first time DCD testers experiences.

The simulator is still in early beta as I'm not a coder and I have to do it in my spare time so there is still a lot of things not working, IE the sissors, ect.  However you can still remove links by clicking on them for the time being.  Anyhow check it out and let me know what you think.  If you have any further questions let me know.

DCD Simulator

www.virtualtiers.net

0 Kudos
btniko
Contributor
Contributor

Hi SeanDA.

I attended the exam in Barcelona and failed with 270p.

Reading your post and I have the exact same experience with the exam and the design tool.

I hitting my self several times that the design tool did not allow me to design best practice.

I m very confused on what to restudy now.

Seems only possible way is to attend a design workshop to get this sorted out.

Hope VMware can provide some info.

My exam environment did also crash several times, and I had to change PC. Some of my designs where lost and I had to restart.

Even if I got the time added back it was very disruptive.

Regards, Bjørn.

0 Kudos
JPM300
Commander
Commander

Hey btniko,

If you want to ever ping some idea's or questions shoot me a PM.  Also I have a post on New DCD Study Material on the forums where myself and other community members are building test questions to help assist with the studying endeavor as the open ended part of this exam leaves many to wonder where to start next.

0 Kudos
SeanDA
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

My issue with the design tool is that there is no right and wrong answer most of the time....

You could have Active / Standby for Management, just as you could have Active / Active (Port id) and they are both correct

For iSCSI, are they wanting you to take your iSCSI uplinks to a separate set of physical switches? or is it now ok to use a single set of physical switches now for all traffic, just because the design tool cant handle creating multiple vSwitches / dvSwitches? (best practice) or do they want you to create a two separate vSwitches each with a single VMK port Group? or could it be a single vSwitch for iSCSI with two VMK's, each configured with a single uplink and no Standby adapters?

I completely understand that its about 'design', which could be logical i.e. all the obove doesn't really matter! or it could be physical, when it really does matter.....

The whole problem for me is that the question is way too vague. I have been designing enterprise VMware solutions for since 2007 and have probably implemented every conceivable combination of networking possible, and I have no idea what the question is trying to get me to do!

If VMware were to publish a question along with the correct answer which scored 100% of the points available, and an explanation why it is correct, then I think they could put an end to all the confusion and misinterpretation very, very easily. Until that happens I'm afraid people will still be going into this exam with no idea about what they should be doing.

0 Kudos
AC81
Contributor
Contributor

I'm going to echo those experiences above - I was slightly stumped at the active/active or active/redundant links, and also the iSCSI and NFS - I found a couple of the design questions ambiguous in that respect - should separate iSCSI switches be included as logical?  I'd say yes..

0 Kudos
Bill_Oyler
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

I agree with all off the comments above.  For iSCSI, almost every iSCSI vendor requires that each iSCSI vmkernel (i.e. iSCSI1 and iSCSI2) are using different physical uplinks, so you would make vmnic0 as "Active" and vmnic1 as "Unused" for iSCSI1 and vice-versa for iSCSI2.  However, for most other port groups, (i.e. Management, NFS, VM Traffic) most designs I've seen use Active/Active uplinks with Virtual Port ID load balancing (or Load-Based Teaming on Distributed vSwitch).  The design simulator on DCD seems to be pushing us to configure Active/Standby everywhere which is certainly valid but not as common as Active/Active and Active/Unused is correct for iSCSI.  Active/Standby would be correct for Multi-NIC vMotion but I don't think they want us to plan for multi-NIC vMotion.

Agreed on the NFS vs. iSCSI questions.  Almost always the NFS traffic is on a separate vmkernel from iSCSI, since iSCSI typically involves two vmkernels, often on separate subnets, for MPIO to work correctly.  NFS is typically on a single subnet with Active/Active uplinks using NIC failover rather than MPIO.

Another problem I recall from the exam is that the simulations always call for "Dual HBAs" or "Dual 10 Gig NICs", but it is unclear whether they want a single PCI card with dual ports, or two actual PCI cards.  The graphics in the simulator appear as though each PCI card has dual ports, and adding a 2nd PCI card usually is too "busy" for the Visio, i.e. there often is not enough space to hold two PCI cards.  So to me, a single PCI card with two ports seems to be what they are asking.  But another common design is two physical PCI cards to protect against a PCI card failure brining down the whole vSwitch...

Another question is Jumbo Frames.   Technically Jumbo Frames are optional for iSCSI.  Some people use them, many people do not.  Each iSCSI vendor has different recommendations.  The scenario doesn't specifically tell us to use jumbo frames, but it allows us to configure it.  Since it is optional, what is the right answer?

I would love to know what goes on inside the "Black Box" that calculates partial credit for these mock design simulations... in other words if we design port groups with Active/Active links, which is perfectly normal and reasonable, do we get docked points because the exam author wanted Active/Standby? 

Bill Oyler Systems Engineer
0 Kudos
JPM300
Commander
Commander

Hey Bill Oyler,

When it comes to the PCI slots information on those questions I'm working on getting that updated as well, as that should be an easy fix.

If you have further questions please let me know.

As far as the rest of the questions you guys have I'm currently working on getting answers to those and will hopeful have something posted in forums soon.

As far as the iSCSI stuff goes that is some other stuff I'm currently looking into getting updated a little.  Hopefully I will have some updates for you guys soon.