Microsoft AZ-204 Exam - Topic 4 Question 100 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's AZ-204 exam

Question #: 100
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 are developing an Azure Service application that processes queue data when it receives a message from a mobile application. Messages may not be sent to the service consistently.

You have the following requirements:

Queue size must not grow larger than 80 gigabytes (GB).

Use first-in-first-out (FIFO) ordering of messages.

Minimize Azure costs.

You need to implement the messaging solution.

Solution: Use the .Net API to add a message to an Azure Storage Queue from the mobile application. Create an Azure VM that is triggered from Azure Storage Queue events.

Does the solution meet the goal?

AYes

BNo

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Tiffiny at Aug 09, 2024, 12:12 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium AZ-204 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Clarinda

4 months ago

It meets the queue size requirement, at least.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elke

4 months ago

No way this minimizes costs effectively.

upvoted 0 times

...

Martina

4 months ago

Surprised this is even an option!

upvoted 0 times

...

Matthew

4 months ago

Agreed, using Azure Storage Queue isn't FIFO.

upvoted 0 times

...

Brandon

5 months ago

This won't maintain FIFO ordering.

upvoted 0 times

...

Venita

5 months ago

I think the solution could work, but I’m uncertain about the FIFO aspect with Azure Storage Queue. It might be better to use Azure Service Bus instead.

upvoted 0 times

...

Winfred

5 months ago

I feel like using a VM might increase costs unnecessarily. Maybe Azure Functions would be a better option for triggering events?

upvoted 0 times

...

Malcom

5 months ago

I remember practicing a similar question where we had to consider costs and message ordering. I think this solution might not be the best fit.

upvoted 0 times

...

Curt

5 months ago

I'm not sure if using Azure Storage Queue meets the FIFO requirement since it typically doesn't guarantee that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Filiberto

5 months ago

I'm a bit confused by the wording of the question. Does "Does the solution meet the goal?" mean the provided solution, or can we propose our own? I'll need to carefully read through the instructions again to make sure I understand what's expected.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yong

5 months ago

I've got an idea! Using Azure Functions triggered by the Storage Queue events could be a more cost-effective solution than a VM. I'll make sure to research the details to confirm it meets all the requirements.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jacki

5 months ago

Okay, let me think this through. The key seems to be finding a solution that can handle the queue size and ordering requirements while also being cost-effective. I'll need to consider other Azure services that might be a better fit.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lemuel

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The queue size limit and FIFO ordering seem clear, but I'm not sure if using a VM is the best approach to minimize costs.

upvoted 0 times

...

Denny

6 months ago

This seems like a straightforward question. I'll start by carefully reading through the requirements to make sure I understand them fully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Timothy

6 months ago

Okay, I've got this. North Korea is definitely under OFAC sanctions, so A is correct. The other countries like Jordan and Bahrain aren't typically sanctioned, and Russia is a more recent addition, so the answer is A.

upvoted 0 times

...

Xuan

6 months ago

I'm a little hesitant about the idea of creating interaction terms. While that could potentially increase the R-squared, it also runs the risk of overfitting the model. I think I'd be more inclined to try breaking the variables out into their own univariate models first, just to see if that gives us any additional insights before getting too complex with the modeling.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lemuel

10 months ago

This feels like one of those exam questions where the 'correct' answer is actually the worst option. Azure Functions all the way, unless they're trying to trick us into overthinking it.

upvoted 0 times

Salena

9 months ago

You're right, Azure Functions would be more cost-effective.

upvoted 0 times

...

Blythe

9 months ago

I think Azure Functions would be a better choice here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Glynda

9 months ago

B) No

upvoted 0 times

...

Jutta

9 months ago

A) Yes

upvoted 0 times

...

Glenn

10 months ago

Haha, I bet the exam writers had a field day coming up with this one. 'Use a VM, they said. It'll be fine, they said.' I'd go with the Functions approach too, but I'd also make sure to set up proper monitoring and alerting to keep an eye on that queue size.

upvoted 0 times

...

Refugia

10 months ago

I agree with Kattie. The Azure VM approach might not be the most cost-effective solution, especially if the queue size fluctuates a lot. Azure Functions could be a better fit, as they can scale automatically to handle the message load and only charge for the compute time used.

upvoted 0 times

Tracey

9 months ago

User 3: I agree with Kattie. Azure Functions could be a better fit.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rodolfo

9 months ago

User 2: B) No

upvoted 0 times

...

Kassandra

9 months ago

User 1: A) Yes

upvoted 0 times

...

Kattie

11 months ago

The solution seems to address the requirements, but I'm concerned about the scalability of the Azure VM. As the queue size grows, the VM might not be able to process the messages fast enough, leading to queue backlog. I would suggest exploring other serverless options like Azure Functions instead.

upvoted 0 times

Lilli

10 months ago

Shawn: That makes sense, thanks for the suggestion!

upvoted 0 times

...

Jospeh

10 months ago

User 3: I agree with Jospeh, Azure Functions might be a better option for scalability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shawn

10 months ago

User 2: B) No

upvoted 0 times

...

Stephane

10 months ago

User 1: A) Yes

upvoted 0 times

...

Sol

11 months ago

Using the .NET API to add messages to an Azure Storage Queue and triggering an Azure VM from queue events seems like a reasonable solution. It should meet the FIFO ordering requirement, but I'm not sure it will keep the queue size under 80 GB, and the Azure VM might incur unnecessary costs.

upvoted 0 times