AZ-305 Design infrastructure solutions Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✓

  Azure Files

  Why this is correct

  Azure Files provides fully managed SMB (and optionally NFS) file shares in the cloud, accessible via standard file-sharing protocols such as SMB 3.0. Because the legacy application expects file-level access over a shared filesystem, Azure Files can be mounted as a network drive on the target VM without modifying application code, preserving existing file semantics and minimizing migration changes. It also integrates with Microsoft Entra ID for Kerberos-based authentication, making it a low-friction drop-in for file-level dependencies.

• ✗

  Azure Disk Storage

  Why it's wrong here

  Azure Disk Storage delivers block-level storage, where each disk is presented as a raw VHD device to a virtual machine rather than as a pre-built file share. The guest operating system must format the disk with a filesystem (e.g., NTFS) and then manually configure file sharing (e.g., via SMB server roles) to expose it over the network. This adds operational overhead and does not provide a fully managed file-level service out of the box, so it does not align with a legacy application that requires immediate, protocol-native file-level access without rearchitecting.

• ✗

  Azure Blob Storage

  Why it's wrong here

  Azure Blob Storage is an object storage service optimized for unstructured data (e.g., images, videos, log files) and is accessed through HTTP/REST APIs (or SDKs), not through standard file system interfaces like SMB or NFS. A legacy application that relies on file-level semantics, such as opening paths like \\server\share\file or using file lock APIs, cannot use Blob Storage without significant application rewrites to replace file operations with blob operations (e.g., Put Blob, Get Blob). Its design is for massive scale and analytics, not for providing a POSIX-like shared file namespace, making it unsuitable for minimal-change migrations.

• ✗

  Azure NetApp Files

  Why it's wrong here

  Azure NetApp Files is tempting as it provides high-performance file-level access via NFS and SMB protocols, making it suitable for shared file storage needs. However, for a proprietary database requiring file-level access with minimal changes, the expectation is typically for block storage presented as a local disk to the virtual machine hosting the database. Azure NetApp Files delivers network-attached file shares, which may not satisfy the direct disk access or specific file system requirements of some legacy proprietary databases, potentially necessitating application changes or introducing performance overheads not present with block storage. It would be correct for scenarios like high-performance shared file storage, SAP applications, or large-scale content repositories.

Go deeper

Related to this question