hardmulti selectObjective-mapped

An application runs on two identical VMs in a region that does not support availability zones. The app must keep running through planned maintenance and a single hardware fault, and the team does not want to add a second region. Which two deployment choices are appropriate? Select two.

Question 1hardmulti select
Full question →

An application runs on two identical VMs in a region that does not support availability zones. The app must keep running through planned maintenance and a single hardware fault, and the team does not want to add a second region. Which two deployment choices are appropriate? Select two.

Answer choices

Why each option matters

Good practice is not just finding the correct option. The wrong answers often show the exact trap the exam wants you to fall into.

A

Best answer

Place the VMs in an availability set.

An availability set spreads VMs across fault and update domains within the same datacenter scale unit, which protects against planned maintenance and single hardware failures. That matches the region’s lack of zones and the no-second-region requirement.

B

Best answer

Use a standard virtual machine scale set in the same region.

A standard VM scale set can spread instances across fault and update domains within a region and can manage multiple identical VMs. It is appropriate when you need platform-managed instance distribution without using availability zones.

C

Distractor review

Put both VMs in the same fault domain to simplify patching.

Placing both VMs in the same fault domain increases correlated failure risk. It defeats the purpose of resilience and would leave the app vulnerable to a single hardware failure.

D

Distractor review

Deploy the workload in availability zones anyway.

The scenario says the region does not support availability zones, so this option is not available. Even if it were, the question requires an answer that works in the stated region.

E

Distractor review

Use a second Azure region for the primary failover design.

A second region is a disaster recovery pattern, but the scenario explicitly says not to add another region. The question is about in-region resilience only.

Common exam trap

Common exam trap: NAT rules depend on direction and matching traffic

NAT is not only about the public address. The inside/outside interface roles and the ACL or rule that matches traffic are just as important.

Technical deep dive

How to think about this question

NAT questions usually test address translation, overload/PAT behaviour, static mappings and whether the right traffic is being translated. Read the interface direction and address terms carefully.

KKey Concepts to Remember

  • Static NAT maps one inside address to one outside address.
  • PAT allows many inside hosts to share one public address using ports.
  • Inside local and inside global describe the private and translated addresses.
  • NAT ACLs identify traffic for translation, not always security filtering.

TExam Day Tips

  • Identify inside and outside interfaces first.
  • Check whether the scenario needs static NAT, dynamic NAT or PAT.
  • Do not confuse NAT matching ACLs with normal packet-filtering intent.

Related practice questions

Related AZ-104 practice-question pages

Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.

More questions from this exam

Keep practising from the same exam bank, or move into a focused topic page if this question exposed a weak area.

FAQ

Questions learners often ask

What does this AZ-104 question test?

Static NAT maps one inside address to one outside address.

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: Place the VMs in an availability set. — Because the region has no availability zones, the correct resilience choices are in-region constructs that still spread risk across failure boundaries. An availability set meets the maintenance and hardware-fault requirement, and a standard VM scale set also fits because it manages identical instances within the region and can distribute them across domains. Both are valid solutions when zone-based designs are unavailable. Why others are wrong: Putting both VMs in the same fault domain creates a single point of failure. Availability zones are unavailable in the stated region, so that choice cannot be used. A second region would solve a different problem—regional disaster recovery—but the scenario explicitly rules that out. The question is about in-region resilience, so the options that spread VMs across domains are the correct ones.

What should I do if I get this AZ-104 question wrong?

Then try more questions from the same exam bank and focus on understanding why the wrong options are tempting.

Discussion

Loading comments…

Sign in to join the discussion.