What happens to the total number of shares available to the children of a resource pool if a virtual machine i

What happens to the total number of shares available to the children of a resource pool if a virtual machine is powered off inside the resource pool?

A.
It remains the same

B.
It decreases

C.
It increases

D.
It remains the same only if a custom share value was configured

29 Comments on “What happens to the total number of shares available to the children of a resource pool if a virtual machine i”

1. mike says:

this is a tricky one. by default the shares of the children in a resource pool are divided equally between the number of children the resource pool has. So if one VM that is a children powers off then the remaining VM’s should increase their shares, but the total number of shares from the parent resource pool always stay the same regardless. but the question is asking what happens to the shares of the children within the resource pool. So the answer should be C

1. Brian says:

This is from my vmware course “When you delete or power off a virtual machine, fewer total shares remain, so the surviving virtual machines get more access.”
I think that this means the answer is B.

2. Tom says:

Following is the snippet from VMware Docs :

“When you remove a virtual machine from a resource pool, the total number of shares associated with the
resource pool decreases, so that each remaining share represents more resources. For example, assume you
have a pool that is entitled to 6GHz, containing three virtual machines with shares set to Normal. Assuming
the virtual machines are CPU-bound, each gets an equal allocation of 2GHz. If one of the virtual machines is
moved to a different resource pool, the two remaining virtual machines each receive an equal allocation of
3GHz.”

1. vv says:

And how does this quote discribe the answer?..

1. acslater1 says:

There is a difference between shares and resources. The question asks, “What happens to the total number of shares available to the children”, not what happens to the total number of resources allocated to each child. This quote answers the question but the example is misleading.

3. Rajendra says:

I think the answer should be A, as the shares for parent pool are not changing and the same is available whatever be the state of number of children.

4. John Doe says:

Powering off a VM has NO impact on the total share value in the resource pool. This changes only when adding or removing a VM, but power state has nothing to do with it.
Just test it, by powering off a VM in your resource pool and you will see the shares stay the same for all VM’s.

1. larry says:

The answer should be A. The shares are not dependent upon the machine state, right? If that is true, then the shares will stay the same for the children if a virtual machine is powered off in the resource pool. Please let me know if I am wrong. I have a test coming up soon.

5. Mr Smith says:

Seems like B is correct. The answer is backed by the snippet provided from vmware.com. The question is not asking about what will happen to VM shares. the question is asking about the AMOUNT OF RESOURCE “AVAILABLE” to children (VMs). So I will go with B, IT DECREASES.

1. vv says:

6. Kav says:

david can you please point to that actual example? the link you give just goes to a title page

7. Milco Jankoski says:

A is the correct answer because the questios is ”
What happens to the total number of shares available to the children of a resource pool …”

8. Mark says:

Let’s say I have 4 VM’s. Each one of them has a share of 1024MB of memory.

Each VM get’s a share of 256MB.

For a total of 4 shares.

I take one of those VM’s and shut it down, that share goes away.

I now have 3 shares.

The number of shares has gone down. It’s not asking if the VM’s get more resources, if the utilized resources go up or down, it is only asking if the number of shares goes up or down.

9. moors says:

I guess it means like this

RP-01 (Resource pool) contains 2000 shares from VM1 (500 shares) and VM2 (1500 shares)
after power off VM1
RP-01 contains 1500 shares from VM2
So the total number of shares decreases

10. Qvu says:

B is correct.
Suppose that there are 3 VMs each with 1000 shares/each so the total shares for all VMs 3000 shares. Shutdown 1 VM, now you have 2 VMs with 1000 shares/each so the total shares for all VMs is 2000.

11. Bozo says:

Do you know what share is?

Share is a number used to benefit an resource like CPM,MEMORY,DISK in CASE of CONTENTION.

CONTENTION mean when two or more VMs are in dramatical fighting for the same physical resource on host.

A root level resource pool represent 100% of the host capacity minus the overhead.

Where you can see a RUNTIME number of share utilization of an resource pool?

You can see a % of shares usage by a VM inside a pool.

A % of shares will decide which VM will get more CPU time.

So if your poweroff a VM inside a resource pool:

A pool with 1000 shares with 04 vms:

01 VM represents 25% of the pool and NOT 250 shares, EQUIVALENT 250 shares.

If you poweroff one VM, 1000 shares will be divided by 03 VMS

So 1000/03 is: 33.33

33.33 is bigger than 25.00

This mens that who made this stupid question dont know what share is in fact.

In case of death I will píck C, C is more correct.

12. Budzi says:

Maybe I am wrong but I think that every VM has an unlimited amount of shares. When you take the number of shares of a single VM in the resource pool and then divide it by the number of shares for all the powered VMs in the pool, you get the amount of resources that are assigned to the VM. So the question that asks for the available number of shares to the VM’s is confusing to me.

For an example, let’s say that I have a resource pool and in it I have 4 VM’s that have 1000 CPU shares each (and they all have a constant need to run something on the CPU i.e. contention). If I have one CPU they will all get 1/4 of processor time (1000/4000). Then I edit properties for VM 1 and I set it to have 50000 shares. Now I have:
VM 1 – 50000 shares
VM 2 – 1000 shares
VM 3 – 1000 shares
VM 4 – 1000 shares

In total I have 53000 shares, when just a second ago I had a total of 4000 shares. Where did this 49000 shares came from?
If understand this shares thing correctly, if I power off the VM 1 the total number of shares that determine how the resources will be distributed is decreased (it will be 3000 and every remaining VM will get 1/3 of processor time). However, the total number ov AVAILABLE shares to any VM (or child pool) is unlimited (I can now edit properties of VM 2 and give it 1000000 shares).

Sorry if I made any bad assumptions in my reply, I’m still learning about VMware and just wanted to share my thoughts on this matter.

13. GWE says:
14. Chris says:

For reference to this question. Although it is talking about removal or deletion from the resource pool, it effectively would be the same.

http://bit.ly/11PV5AO

15. marin says:

This is from my vmware course ” When you delete or power off a virtual machine, fewer total shares remain, so the surviving virtual machines get more access.”
I think that this answers mine and yours questions – answer B.

16. acslater1 says:

Total number of shares “available to the children” seems to be the key phrase I think. Since total resource pool shares are not directly available to children and are only used to determine the resources available to the share.

Each child VM is assigned a share value to contend with inside of the resource pool. If the resource pool is set to high 8000 shares and there are 4 VMs within the pool each with 1000 shares assigned individually then each VM gets 25% of the total resource pool allocation of resources.

When one VM is removed, then the 1000 shares assigned to the VM goes with it therefore knocking the total amount within the resource pool down to 3000 total. But in turn, each VM now gets approximately 33% of the resources allocated to the pool. Increasing the percentage share.

Like nearly all VMWare questions, this one is so poorly worded it’s difficult to know what it’s asking. But if it is asking about the total shares of the resource pool and not the children within the pool, then yeah, “A” seems to be correct. But overall I think “B” is correct…mostly.

17. But you want to be cautious while selecting any off them.

Whatever the cause of cellulite, it’s important to know
that there aren’t any mirqcle products, treatments, or medicines that can make it
go away. Harmful deposits in the liver or blkood vessels could ead to serious medical problems inclusing fatty plaque and increase the risk of heart attack
or stroke.

18. Charissa says:

It is only PERFECT practice that makes perfect, so finding
the right drills is important. re a self motivated individual and well disciplined, learning to play guitar on DVD may be a good option.
In fact, one of these bonuses is a book designated entirely to finger exercises.