Microsoft AZ-104 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

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.

Searching does not extend storage retention or create a fresh recovery point. The deleted content ages out according to its policy.

Increasing the retention setting can protect future deletions, but it does not recreate a blob already purged after its old 14-day recovery window. The requested recovery point no longer exists in soft delete, and there are no versions or backups in the scenario.

Private endpoints provide network connectivity, not historical data retention. They cannot restore purged logical content.

The account configuration does not reconstruct historical blob contents. A stored previous version is the appropriate recovery point.

Enabling a recovery feature after a destructive overwrite cannot be assumed to recreate an earlier version if no preserved version or backup existed.

A tier transition changes cost/retrieval characteristics of selected data, not its version identity or historical payload.

A SAS authorizes operations but does not recreate an object from retained deleted state. The service recovery operation must restore the blob.

Redundancy protects infrastructure failures, not logical deletion. Every synchronized copy can reflect the same deleted object until soft-delete recovery is performed.

Disabling the protection feature does not perform an undelete and may undermine recoverability. The retained object must be restored through a supported recovery operation.

Versioning preserves historical blob states and can support targeted per-blob recovery, but individually promoting hundreds of versions does not meet the requested container-wide restore to a specific timestamp. Point-in-time restore coordinates eligible block-blob rollback to one selected prior time and requires its prerequisite features enabled before the incident.

Container soft delete is intended to recover a deleted container; it is not a container-wide rewind of overwrites to an arbitrary time. Activating protection after the overwrite also cannot recreate missing historical data. Blob point-in-time restore relies on versioning, change feed and soft-delete prerequisites that were enabled beforehand, as stated in the scenario.

Object replication asynchronously copies supported blob changes under a configured replication policy; it does not reconstruct a past point-in-time image of data already overwritten before the policy existed. A new destination cannot retroactively infer the missing old versions. The configured Blob point-in-time restore is the recovery operation matching the requested timestamp.

Undelete restores deletion state but does not identify and automatically promote the version corresponding to the desired pre-overwrite contents. Inspect versions and choose the correct historical version.

Undelete and historical version selection solve different recovery problems. The service cannot infer which pre-overwrite content is correct for the application.

The newest current version may be the overwritten bad content. Versioning stores specific historical versions, which must be identified and promoted or copied deliberately.

Container soft delete protects deleted containers, not the history of successive successful writes to the same live blob. It does not establish prior revisions of catalog.json.

A monthly snapshot might preserve one old state but cannot automatically capture each supported overwrite. The requested history is keyed to successful write operations, not a periodic manual point.

GRS copies the latest replicated state to another region. It helps with regional disaster recovery but does not create application-level revisions for every successful overwrite.

A periodic manual operation can reduce cost eventually, but it does not apply a continuous age-based rule when blobs cross 30 days or eliminate the recurring operational script.

The account default influences how new supported blobs are created, but it does not automatically move existing 30-day-old blobs into another tier as they age.

Blob index tags can classify and filter eligible objects, including as conditions for a lifecycle rule, but tags alone do not execute an age-based tier transition. The required automatic action still needs a lifecycle management policy with a transition action and qualifying age conditions.

Container deletion removes current data as well as history, violating the requirement to keep active blobs available.

Legal holds prevent deletion while active; they do not provide an age-based clean-up rule. Use a Blob lifecycle rule that selects previous versions and deletes only those older than the agreed threshold.

Soft delete protects deleted data for recovery; it is not an automatic aging rule that removes only previous versions while preserving current blobs. A lifecycle-management rule must target previous versions and implement the approved retention threshold.

An account-wide default change cannot discriminate on the object path or age and may apply the wrong behavior to new active media.

Age rules without a filter can transition active live/ media once it reaches the specified age. The scenario explicitly needs audit/ objects isolated from unrelated workloads.

ARM resource tags describe the account, not the per-blob audit/ versus live/ paths. This filter would not isolate the requested objects within one storage account.

An ARM resource tag labels the storage account as a management-plane resource; it is not equivalent to an index tag stored on each blob. Lifecycle rule filters operate on supported blob types, prefixes, and blob index tags. An account-level tag would not identify which individual files carry Class=Archive.

Prefix matching selects blob names and virtual folders, not the requested metadata classification. The stem explicitly says the Class value must work independently of the blob path, so a prefix-only rule would miss correctly labeled blobs in other paths and could include unlabeled blobs with similar names.

An age threshold can govern when a lifecycle action runs, but by itself it cannot distinguish Class=Archive from unrelated objects of the same age. It would apply the transition to every otherwise eligible blob. Combine age conditions with a matching blob index tag filter so classification, not merely time, determines membership.