Microsoft AZ-104 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

Availability sets spread VMs across update and fault domains for availability. They are not a control-plane substitute for subscription-level resource provider registration. Changing VM placement will not make Azure Recovery Services accept a destination subscription that is missing the provider.

A snapshot-only recovery point cannot replace the eligible vault-tier recovery point for a cross-subscription destination. Deleting backup history risks data protection and does nothing to register required service providers in the destination subscription.

Disabling the vault’s Cross Subscription Restore capability explicitly prevents the requested operation to another subscription. The problem is not an overly permissive setting but a missing subscription-level registration; disabling CSR would add a second blocker rather than resolve the provider error.

Recovery points represent historical backed-up state and are not edited to reflect later VM mutations. Update the restored VM through a supported VM resize process instead.

Backup policies control scheduling and retention rather than retroactively editing a recovery point's captured VM configuration. Resize the restored VM as a separate Azure management operation.

Vault redundancy determines backup-data resilience, not the Azure VM SKU captured at an older recovery point. Restore uses the recorded VM configuration subject to support, and a later VM resize is separate.

An unplanned production failover is a disaster operation that can interrupt or relocate the workload. It is not the safest way to test readiness while production must remain active.

A planned failover affects live workload placement and is not equivalent to an isolated non-disruptive test. The production environment must remain operational.

Healthy replication indicators do not establish that an application boots or works in the target network. Test failover provides practical validation.

Test failover validates recovery without actually moving the protected production traffic. It is not a substitute for the real planned cutover.

Reprotect configures reverse replication or protection after a failover in supported recovery workflows; it does not initiate a clean planned failover from the still-running primary site. Use the scheduled planned-failover procedure with source shutdown and synchronization instead.

Unplanned failover is intended for an unexpected primary outage. It can accept a less recent recovery point when clean source coordination is unavailable.

Changing a name does not establish a replication channel from the recovery region to the restored primary region.

Deleting the active recovered disks would destroy the very changes that need protection and could interrupt the production workload.

Reader access provides visibility, not replication. Disabling protection does not prepare data-consistent failback.

Per-VM replication can recover machines, but it does not encode the database-to-API-to-web startup order across the dependency chain.

Network mappings choose target virtual networks, not a per-tier failover sequence with dependency automation.

A single parallel recovery group does not enforce the required database, then API, then web startup dependencies.

Sizing may affect recovery feasibility but does not determine which target VNet/subnet receives the replica NICs in a failover.

Source security rules do not select the recovery region network and may introduce a new production connectivity issue.

The mere existence of a VNet does not ensure replicas use it. Mapping and test-failover network selection must reference the intended target.

Reprotect configures ongoing reverse-direction replication. It is not the action that finalizes the chosen failover point after the application is validated.

Another failover is a new recovery event rather than committing the already successful recovery decision.

Reprotect is a separate replication-direction operation performed after the recovered environment is accepted. Commit explicitly finalizes the chosen failover recovery point, and Reprotect doesn't replace that acceptance step.

A production commit is part of actual disaster-recovery cutover, not routine cleanup of an isolated drill. It would change live operations unnecessarily.

The original VM should continue serving production during a test. Deleting it would turn a controlled exercise into a real outage.

Disabling replication eliminates the future recovery capability and is not the supported post-test cleanup procedure.

Healthy VM performance says little about whether backup jobs actually completed. A job can fail while the VM itself remains operational.

Advisor guidance can identify opportunities but does not replace operational backup-job failure status and configured backup health alerts.

Vault capacity consumption does not identify failed scheduled jobs across the protected workloads. The team needs backup-health and job-result telemetry.

The Activity Log captures resource-management events, not the protected-item and backup workload reporting model across selected vaults. It cannot substitute for the Backup Reports dataset needed for job, instance and usage trends.

Guest performance monitoring shows VM resource utilization, not the required backup job history, protected-item coverage or vault storage trends. A functioning VM can still have missed or failing backup jobs.

A backup policy describes intended scheduling and retention but cannot establish the actual outcome of individual jobs or historical protected-instance usage. Cross-vault oversight requires real protection telemetry and a reporting path, not policy definitions alone.