A company needs to store backup data that must be retained for 7 years. They want to store the data as cheaply as possible, and access may be rare. Which Azure Storage access tier is most cost-effective?
The Archive tier is designed specifically for long-term retention of data that is accessed rarely, offering the lowest per-gigabyte storage cost among Azure Blob Storage tiers. Because these backups must be kept for 7 years and are unlikely to be read regularly, the retrieval latency of up to several hours (via rehydration) is acceptable. This makes Archive the most cost-effective and correct choice for meeting the retention requirement while minimizing expenditure.
Why this answer
The Archive tier is the most cost-effective option for data that must be retained for 7 years with rare access. It offers the lowest storage cost among Azure Blob Storage access tiers, specifically designed for long-term retention where retrieval latency of up to 15 hours is acceptable. This aligns perfectly with the requirement to minimize cost while meeting the 7-year retention period.
Exam trap
The trap here is that candidates often confuse 'cheapest storage cost' with 'cheapest overall cost,' overlooking the high retrieval costs and rehydration latency of the Archive tier, or they mistakenly choose Cool tier because it sounds 'cool enough' for rare access without considering the 7-year retention requirement.
Why the other options are wrong
The Hot tier is designed for frequently accessed data and has higher storage costs, making it unsuitable for long-term, rarely accessed backup retention over 7 years.
The Cool tier is designed for data with moderate access frequency and a minimum 30-day storage duration, but the question specifies rare access and a 7-year retention period, making the Archive tier cheaper due to its lower storage cost.
The Premium tier is designed for low-latency, high-performance workloads and is the most expensive tier, making it unsuitable for cheap, rarely accessed backup data retained for 7 years.