Based on the exhibit, the company will deploy two identical web server VMs in East US 2 behind a load balancer. The service must keep running if one datacenter in the region becomes unavailable. Which deployment choice best meets the requirement?
Availability zones place each VM in a separate datacenter boundary, which protects against one zone failure. If you distribute the web servers across zones, the load balancer can continue sending traffic to the remaining healthy instance when a zone becomes unavailable. This design matches the requirement to survive a datacenter outage within the region.
Why this answer
Deploying one VM in each of two availability zones within East US 2 ensures that the VMs are physically separated across distinct datacenters, each with independent power, cooling, and networking. If one datacenter (zone) fails, the other zone remains operational, and the load balancer automatically directs traffic to the healthy VM. This meets the requirement of keeping the service running if one datacenter in the region becomes unavailable.
Exam trap
The trap here is that candidates often confuse availability sets (which protect against rack-level failures within one datacenter) with availability zones (which protect against full datacenter outages), leading them to choose Option A as a sufficient solution.
Why the other options are wrong
An availability set protects against hardware failures within a single datacenter but does not provide resilience if an entire datacenter becomes unavailable, as it spans only fault domains within one datacenter.
Option C is wrong because placing both VMs in one availability zone does not protect against a datacenter failure within that zone; if the zone's datacenter fails, both VMs are affected. The requirement is to survive a single datacenter failure, which requires spreading across zones.
Azure does not automatically replicate a single VM across a region; a single VM is a single point of failure and cannot survive a datacenter outage.