Microsoft AZ-104 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

A VM NIC's DNS server configuration affects the guest's name-resolution behavior, not publication of an Azure-managed cloudapp.azure.com FQDN. The requested regional DNS label belongs on the public IP resource.

Azure resource-group names are management identifiers inside a subscription, not automatic public hostnames. Renaming the group is not supported in place and would not register an A record in cloudapp.azure.com. The public IP's domain-name-label property is the appropriate DNS configuration point.

An NSG rule filters traffic by addresses, ports, protocol and priority. Its descriptive rule name doesn't publish an Azure-managed DNS record or modify an IP resource's hostname. Even after setting the correct label, the workload still needs suitable network permissions and a listening service.

The availability set helps distribute virtual machines across underlying fault and update domains. It is unrelated to authorization or network transfer policy for a managed disk SAS. Moving the VM would risk availability without preventing disk content export.

Guest filesystem permissions affect operations by processes inside the virtual machine, not privileged Azure control-plane disk export. A user with export permissions could still request disk access even if the filesystem is mounted read-only inside the guest.

An NSG filters network flows at a NIC or subnet. The Azure managed disk export API and disk SAS are not controlled by a VM inbound RDP rule; blocking TCP 3389 leaves the disk resource’s external export path available.

Changing an application timeout does not direct the Azure fabric to relocate the virtual machine. Host-placement troubleshooting requires an appropriate compute lifecycle operation.

A normal guest restart doesn't guarantee Azure host relocation. Redeploy reallocates the VM on different host infrastructure when host placement is the suspected issue; Reapply only reapplies the VM model.

Reapply reconciles VM configuration with the platform but is not a host-migration operation. Repeating it does not establish that the VM moved to fresh fabric, while Redeploy is the operation designed to change host placement.

Two instances in one zone can become unavailable together when that entire zone fails. Redundant VM count alone does not create zonal diversity.

An availability set separates fault and update domains within its supported infrastructure, but it is not the same as deliberately distributing VMs across availability zones against a whole-zone disaster.

Availability sets distribute fault and update domains but do not explicitly place instances in independent availability zones. A full-zone outage remains outside the claimed placement guarantee.

An availability zone describes a physically separate failure domain, not the maintenance grouping that sequences host restarts among VMs in an availability set.

Fault domains help separate underlying infrastructure failure risks but are not the specific grouping used to schedule planned platform maintenance restarts.

Proximity placement groups improve placement latency for related compute resources. They do not govern the availability set’s planned-maintenance restart order.

Shared host placement increases correlated failure risk. It does not create separate fault domains for resiliency.

A single VM increases vertical capacity but remains a single compute failure point. It does not provide infrastructure-level redundancy.

Multiple DNS records do not create a second independent compute instance. The sole running VM remains the single point of failure.

Availability zones are failure-isolation boundaries. Spreading machines across zones can improve outage resilience but does not target physical proximity or minimum latency.

An availability set spreads VMs across fault/update domains for resilience; it is not a guarantee that hosts will be as close together as a proximity placement group targets.

Resource groups and tags are management constructs; a shared tag does not request low-latency physical placement. A supported proximity placement group is the Azure feature specifically intended to guide nearby compute placement.

Adding instances distributes them among the configured update domains; it does not increase the number of domains selected when the set was created.

Fault and update domains are platform placement dimensions governed by the availability set configuration, not per-VM user-editable numbers that can be increased afterward. The operator cannot change an existing set from five to ten update domains by editing its member VMs. A new placement/migration design is required if the original topology no longer meets needs.

Guest operating-system configuration has no authority to modify the platform placement-domain count of an Azure resource.

Availability-set update domains control maintenance sequencing and their count does not increase the available hardware families in a colocated data center.

Spreading VMs across zones provides failure isolation, not strict physical co-location or lowest latency. A proximity placement group has specific placement constraints.

Backup recovery points protect workload data but do not affect where Azure compute capacity is physically available for VM allocation.

Simply deallocating an existing standalone VM does not permit an in-place change to its availability-set membership. Placement is established at VM creation; supported conversion requires deleting and recreating the VM resource with correctly preserved disk and network resources.

Resource Mover supports documented resource-migration scenarios; it does not provide an in-place switch that adds already-created standalone VM resources to an availability set. Supported recreation/redeployment is needed for that placement choice.

Resource-group membership is a management boundary, not an availability-set relationship. Moving an existing VM into that resource group leaves its deployment placement unchanged; it still needs supported recreation to join the set.

Zone selection affects those VM resources, not automatically the database or external dependencies. The single-zone database is still a failure point.

A zone-redundant frontend can keep routing to healthy web instances after a zone loss, but it cannot make a database that exists only in zone 1 available. The required stateful backend still fails and interrupts the application; that dependency needs a cross-zone resilience design.

Protecting the web VM helps recover a stateless tier, but the application still requires its stateful database in the failed zone. Without a resilient or recoverable database dependency and tested failover, the service remains unavailable despite other recovery features.