Microsoft AZ-104 Exam - Topic 4 Question 117 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's AZ-104 exam

Question #: 117
Topic #: 4

Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution.

After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result, these questions will not appear in the review screen.

You have an Azure subscription that contains the virtual machines shown in the following table.

You deploy a load balancer that has the following configurations:

* Name: LB1

* Type: Internal

* SKU: Standard

* Virtual network: VNET1

You need to ensure that you can add VM1 and VM2 to the backend pool of LB1.

Solution: You create a Standard SKU public IP address, associate the address to the network interface of VM1, and then stop VM2.

Does this meet the goal?

AYes

BNo

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/extensions/dsc-overview

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machine-scale-sets/tutorial-install-apps-template

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/samples/mspnp/samples/azure-well-architected-framework-sample-state-configuration

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/framework/devops/automation-configuration

by Lenna at Mar 20, 2025, 08:14 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium AZ-104 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Juan

9 months ago

Standard SKU public IP is for public load balancers, not internal.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jennifer

9 months ago

Just stopping VM2 doesn't help with the backend pool.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marquetta

10 months ago

You can't add VMs to an internal load balancer with a public IP.

upvoted 0 times

...

Farrah

10 months ago

Wait, are we sure about that? Sounds off.

upvoted 0 times

...

Corinne

10 months ago

Totally agree, that won't work!

upvoted 0 times

...

Juan

10 months ago

I feel like I’ve seen this scenario before, and I think the answer is "No" because of the public IP requirement.

upvoted 0 times

...

William

10 months ago

I’m a bit confused about the need for a public IP with an internal load balancer. I thought it was unnecessary.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rex

11 months ago

I think I practiced a similar question where we had to ensure VMs were in the same virtual network. Not sure if stopping VM2 is relevant here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carman

11 months ago

I remember that internal load balancers don't require public IPs, so this solution might not work.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elena

11 months ago

Okay, I think I see what's going on here. The goal is to add VM1 and VM2 to the backend pool of the internal load balancer. The proposed solution of adding a public IP to VM1 and stopping VM2 doesn't seem to address that directly. I'll need to think about how to properly configure the VMs and the load balancer to meet the requirements.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cassi

11 months ago

I think I've got a handle on this. The key is that the load balancer is internal, so the VMs need to be in the same virtual network. The proposed solution of adding a public IP to VM1 doesn't seem quite right. Let me review the requirements again and see if I can come up with a better approach.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rikki

12 months ago

I'm a bit confused by the part about the public IP address. Isn't this an internal load balancer? I'll need to make sure I understand how that fits into the solution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rosalind

12 months ago

Okay, let me think this through step-by-step. The key seems to be ensuring that VM1 and VM2 can be added to the backend pool of the internal load balancer. I'll need to double-check the requirements and see if the proposed solution fully addresses that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Maile

12 months ago

Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully review the requirements and the proposed solution to make sure I understand everything correctly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Krissy

1 year ago

Stop VM2? What is this, a hostage situation? Let's just add both VMs and call it a day.

upvoted 0 times

...

Suzi

1 year ago

Ugh, these Azure questions can be so confusing sometimes. I'm just going to go with 'No' and hope for the best.

upvoted 0 times

...

Blythe

1 year ago

Haha, I bet the person who wrote this question was trying to trick us. 'Unique solution' my foot, this is clearly not the way to go about it.

upvoted 0 times

Argelia

1 year ago

Definitely not the way to achieve the goal.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dorathy

1 year ago

I agree, this solution doesn't seem right.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chau

1 year ago

B) No

upvoted 0 times

...

Ollie

1 year ago

A) Yes

upvoted 0 times

...

Nana

1 year ago

Hmm, I'm not sure creating a public IP address for an internal load balancer is the correct solution. Isn't that kind of defeating the purpose of an internal load balancer?

upvoted 0 times