Free Actual Microsoft Azure AZ-204 Actual Exam Questions

B then A then D then C fits the direct copy and setup flow.

I think you should first create the new storage account in the other region (B), since that’s your destination. Then enable change feed on the new account (D) so it’s ready to track changes after data is copied. Next, perform the server-to-server copy with AzCopy (A) because it supports direct blob copy between accounts. Finally, validate that the data has been copied correctly (C). This order makes sense because the target account needs to exist and have change feed enabled before copying, and AzCopy is the go-to tool for this kind of operation.

I’d add searchable to name and description since users look for those by text, and filterable to location, cuisine, rating, and family-friendliness so users can narrow down results easily. That meets all requirements.

I’d make location and cuisine both searchable and filterable since users search by and filter on them. Plus, rating and family-friendliness should be filterable only. That covers both searching and narrowing effectively.

Sounds right, Azure Functions trigger instantly on blob upload. A

A, Azure Functions are event-driven and typically start immediately after a blob upload.

I’d go with A and C here. A helps with VM repairs directly, and C lets you manage extensions or run scripts, which is pretty useful for fixing issues on the VMs themselves.

I think A is a must-have since it’s the main tool for VM troubleshooting. For the second, I’d pick B over C or D because logs can pinpoint exactly what went wrong, which is crucial for correction. C feels more like a monitoring tool rather than one you actively use to fix problems. D’s more about ongoing health tracking, not immediate fixes. So, A and B seem like the best combo for identifying and correcting VM issues directly.

ScaledObject defines scaling, TriggerAuthentication secures queue access, so both are needed.

ScaledObject sets the scaling rules based on queue length, so it’s essential. TriggerAuthentication handles secure access to the storage queue, so both are needed. The others don’t fit this scenario.

I agree that Core (SQL) API is the best fit since it handles JSON documents well and offers the most flexibility for customized data. The Table API wouldn’t support complex items, and MongoDB API is more for compatibility with existing Mongo apps. For partition keys, picking a property that’s frequently queried or used to filter the data makes sense, so option D seems right to me. It’s all about ensuring efficient query performance, so the combination of Core API with a relevant partition key is the way to go here.

I’d skip MongoDB API since it’s more for existing Mongo apps. The Table API is limited to key-value, so probably not good for complex customized items. Core (SQL) API with a smart partition key is the way to go.

ARR is mainly for routing, not session state storage or concurrency control, B.

B Definitely not. ARR just handles routing and load balancing, it doesn’t store session state or manage concurrent access to session data. Since the question needs shared session state across apps and controlled concurrency, ARR alone won’t cut it. You’d need something like Azure Cache for Redis or a distributed session state provider instead.

E, only a single environment ensures shared VNet and Log Analytics workspace.

E, because separate environments would isolate networks and logs, not combine them.

I'd add verifying domain ownership right after creating the CNAME record, before enabling the custom domain. It’s crucial to confirm you control the domain to avoid issues later.

First, create the CNAME record for www pointing to storage1.web.core.windows.net in Azure DNS. Then verify domain ownership if needed, followed by enabling the custom domain in the storage account settings. Finally, test access through www.contoso.com to confirm it's working.

It’s C because managed identities let App1 authenticate to Vault1 without any credentials in the code, plus Azure handles the token rotation automatically. D adds complexity with cert management, which isn’t as smooth.

Makes sense that managed identity (C) is the way to go here since it gives the app access without any secrets in the code. Plus, it works smoothly with Key Vault's built-in rotation. Option A only handles access permissions but not automatic rotation, so that’s out. D seems overkill and more manual, while B doesn’t relate to key vault access at all. So C feels like the cleanest, most secure choice.

I think option B fits better since samplingRate is usually a top-level property in the traces or requests data. Filtering like in option D is useful but might miss where the sample rate is actually stored.

I’d add that checking for samplingPercentage inside customDimensions of the requests table works because that’s where Application Insights logs most request metadata, including sampling info. Other tables like traces won’t have this data consistently.

I’m with you all on “Authorization” and “Bearer.” "WWW-Authenticate" is more for server responses, so it doesn’t really belong in the request policy here. This seems straightforward.

I agree with picking “Authorization” and “Bearer,” but also considered “WWW-Authenticate” — it’s usually for responses, so doesn’t fit here. That helps confirm those two are the right call for requests.

Partition ownership handles rebalancing after a failure, and checkpointing ensures no events get reprocessed. Without both, you risk missing data or duplication. So those two are definitely the key features here.

Partition ownership tracks who processes which partitions, so when one fails, another can take over seamlessly. Checkpointing makes sure processing restarts exactly from the last event processed. Both fit the dynamic failover need perfectly.

It’s A and E for me. Operation.Id is key to link the dependency call back to the request, making sure you track the full transaction chain. Then, Name helps identify what specific dependency or operation was called, which is crucial for analysis. Telemetry.Id (C) tracks the telemetry item itself but doesn’t help as much with correlating multiple calls in context. Cloud.RoleInstance (B) is more about where it ran, not the call itself. Session.Id (D) is user-session focused, so less relevant here. So A and E make the most sense to store for effective dependency tracking.

A Telemetry.Context.Operation.Id is definitely needed for correlation. I’d also pick C Telemetry.Id because it uniquely tracks each dependency call, which helps when analyzing individual requests or issues.

I think the key part here is that the app needs to work offline and sync changes back when online, so you definitely need both PushAsync and PullAsync. Without PushAsync, any local changes wouldn’t be sent to the server, which messes up the sync. InitializeLocalStoreAsync is also necessary to set up offline storage before syncing. So, the best combo is InitializeLocalStoreAsync, then PushAsync, then PullAsync. Skipping any one of these would break complete offline sync functionality.

The key is the app needs to sync changes both ways. So calling PushAsync to send local updates and PullAsync to get server changes makes sense here. Just one wouldn’t fully cover offline syncing.