Microsoft AZ-104 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

The blob is unavailable because its Archive tier is offline, not because throughput is exhausted. Additional capacity does not complete the required rehydration operation.

Requesting an online tier initiates rehydration, which can take time. The application cannot assume the content is available until the rehydration operation finishes.

Anonymous access is an authorization setting and creates security exposure. Even an authorized caller cannot directly read an offline blob before rehydration.

Archive minimizes long-term storage cost but archived blobs require rehydration before ordinary reads. It does not meet the immediate-online-access condition.

Hot is optimized for frequently accessed objects, making it less economical for quarterly retrieval when the business accepts Cool’s read costs.

Premium block blob storage is designed for low-latency, high-transaction workloads, not as the lower-capacity-cost tier for infrequently accessed objects. Cool provides the requested online access/capacity cost tradeoff.

Cold tier still has access and transaction pricing; the apparent capacity savings do not remove other cost categories.

Cold is an online tier with low-latency reads, unlike Archive. The concern is minimum retention and charges.

Cold tier has a minimum retention expectation. Early deletion charges may still be incurred despite the blob no longer being online after 20 days.

An explicit blob-tier selection takes precedence over the account default. Changing the default does not erase individually selected tiers on those objects.

Explicitly tiered Cool blobs retain that selection regardless of the account default, so changing the default would not be the reason they move.

Previous versions have their own tier behavior and lifecycle, but the account default applies to current blobs with inferred tier. It is not restricted to previous versions.

Archive is an offline tier that requires rehydration before ordinary data reads. Immediate reads are not its defining service characteristic.

The tier includes minimum-retention cost implications and retrieval operations; ignoring them would understate archival storage expenses.

Archive has specific redundancy restrictions and is not designed for ZRS accounts. The proposed pricing claim is unrelated to zone support.

Archived blobs cannot be read through normal Get Blob until they are rehydrated to an online access tier.

Even for a small archived blob, Standard-priority rehydration can take several hours and doesn't meet the time-sensitive requirement. High-priority rehydration is the supported expedited path, though it still is not instantaneous.

An account-level default access-tier setting does not instantly rehydrate an object explicitly placed in Archive. That blob requires an appropriate rehydration operation, which can be requested at High priority.

The account default tier does not rehydrate an explicitly archived historical version; a copy to an online tier is still required.

An in-place Set Blob Tier operation does not support directly rehydrating an archived previous version; the documented route is Copy Blob.

Overwriting current data destroys or changes the production view and has no direct effect on the archived version’s offline state.

The account's default access tier can guide how newly uploaded or default-tier blobs are billed, but it does not rewrite the priority of an already pending archive-tier rehydration. This blob is still in archive processing, and the required improvement is a specific priority change on its pending request. Changing an account-wide default also has broader effects unrelated to the investigator's urgent single-blob retrieval.

A new Copy Blob operation can create another destination for archived data, but that would restart a transfer workflow and create a second object, contrary to the stated constraints. More importantly, Microsoft supports raising an existing Standard-priority rehydration without starting over. Deleting the pending or original blob can jeopardize evidence custody and is not needed to accelerate the current in-flight operation.

Priority changes for a pending archive restoration are not a required two-step downgrade-and-upgrade sequence. Standard is already the request's current priority; it can be upgraded directly to High with the same destination tier. Waiting until the expected Standard recovery window expires defeats the urgent requirement, and lowering a High-priority pending request back to Standard is specifically unsupported.

Set Blob Tier would start rehydrating the original archived blob and alter its access tier rather than preserve it as the required compliance copy. Moving an archive blob to an online tier before its minimum retention interval can incur early-deletion charges. Because the source must remain archived and untouched, choosing an in-place tier conversion fails two explicit constraints.

Archive is an offline blob tier; writes to its contents and ordinary modification requests are not supported until appropriate rehydration. Directly editing the original also contradicts the requirement to keep compliance evidence intact. The supported approach is to create a separate online copy and only modify that new object after it is available.

Blob lifecycle management supports moving eligible online blobs to cooler/archive tiers and deleting according to rules, but it does not support automatic archive-to-online rehydration. A read access request also does not automatically change the archived object to Hot. Explicitly copy the archived blob to an online destination while retaining the source for the required period.

ZRS preserves availability against infrastructure failure. A successful application-level delete is ordinarily replicated across the available copies, so redundancy alone is not a rollback mechanism.

Snapshots may capture some earlier states, but an ad hoc schedule alone does not define the explicit 14-day retention and undelete behavior requested for individual deleted objects.

Container soft delete restores a deleted container as a unit. The scenario concerns individual blobs deleted inside a retained container, which calls for blob soft delete.

Blob versioning can preserve previous versions of individual blobs after certain changes and can complement blob soft delete. It does not itself maintain a deleted container as a recoverable container object. Because the loss here was the container, not merely one blob within an existing container, versioning alone cannot be treated as a replacement for container soft delete.

GRS replicates storage data to a secondary region for disaster resilience. It is not a logical undo feature for the deliberate deletion of an entire container; deletion state can also propagate with geo-replication. A geographically redundant copy is not equivalent to retaining a soft-deleted container with a controlled restore window, so it cannot supply the missing container-recovery mechanism.

Subscription Reader provides visibility into Azure Resource Manager information and does not authorize restoring deleted Blob containers. Restoration requires an appropriate data-plane permission and a recoverable container retained by container soft delete. Because that feature was not enabled before this deletion, changing the user to a Reader role would neither create a retained object nor recover its deleted contents.