Q: 6
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?
Options
Discussion
B, strict FIFO is the dealbreaker in this scenario since Storage Queue doesn't fully guarantee it. VM also adds unnecessary costs imo.
A , since exam guides mention Storage Queues in lots of sample questions and they usually cover cost angles in the official docs. Check the Microsoft docs or run through more practice labs for this format.
B tbh. Storage Queue doesn't support strict FIFO, and using an Azure VM isn’t cheap for sporadic loads. Had something like this in a mock and the answer was B.
Its B for sure. Azure Storage Queues don't give you strict FIFO, so that fails the requirement right there. Plus, spinning up a VM just to process queue messages is overkill and won't help with cost savings, especially if messages come in at random. I'd go with a serverless function and Service Bus queue for strict FIFO if that's allowed-happy to hear other takes though.
B Storage Queue isn't strict FIFO so doesn't meet the requirement.
Its A
B tbh, Storage Queue doesn't guarantee strict FIFO and that catches a lot of people on this kind of question. VM cost is a trap too. If I missed something let me know but B seems right.
Probably B. Storage Queue doesn’t guarantee true FIFO, so it won’t meet that requirement. Also running a VM just for queue processing would bump up costs, which goes against minimizing spend. Pretty sure B is right but open to pushback.
A. Storage Queue with a VM still seems fine to me since it supports FIFO in most cases.
Not A here, B is the right pick.
Be respectful. No spam.
