A would instead validate the other design where a mission-critical Azure SQL database needs protection against single availability-zone loss. That evidence is consistent with enable zone redundancy in a supported Azure SQL Database service tier and region, because zone redundant database placement mitigates an entire zonal infrastructure failure. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves the secondary replica becomes primary and the listener reaches it after failover.

B would instead validate the other design where a transactional application needs connection redirection between Azure SQL databases in two regions. That evidence is consistent with use an Azure SQL failover group with appropriately configured secondary databases, because failover groups coordinate failover endpoints and regional replicas. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves the secondary replica becomes primary and the listener reaches it after failover.

C would instead validate the other design where a domestic object workload must remain available after one availability-zone failure within a single region. That evidence is consistent with select zone-redundant Azure Blob Storage in a supported region, because intra-region synchronous replication protects against single-zone hardware loss. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves the secondary replica becomes primary and the listener reaches it after failover.

“Distribute redundant VM instances across availability zones behind an appropriate load balancer” relies on this Azure capability: zonal distribution reduces dependence on one physical failure domain. This workload involves A globally used Cosmos DB application needs automatic regional failover for a single-write-region account. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: cosmos DB can redirect service to another configured region after a failure. Thus “Configure multiple Cosmos DB regions with automatic failover and tested preferred regions” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Select zone-redundant Azure Blob Storage in a supported region” relies on this Azure capability: intra-region synchronous replication protects against single-zone hardware loss. This workload involves A globally used Cosmos DB application needs automatic regional failover for a single-write-region account. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: cosmos DB can redirect service to another configured region after a failure. Thus “Configure multiple Cosmos DB regions with automatic failover and tested preferred regions” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Use Azure Cosmos DB multi-region writes with a suitable conflict-resolution plan” relies on this Azure capability: multiwrite placement reduces dependence on a sole write region. This workload involves A globally used Cosmos DB application needs automatic regional failover for a single-write-region account. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: cosmos DB can redirect service to another configured region after a failure. Thus “Configure multiple Cosmos DB regions with automatic failover and tested preferred regions” is the applicable architecture choice.

A would instead validate the other design where a global write-intensive Cosmos DB application needs writes accepted by multiple regions where supported. That evidence is consistent with use Azure Cosmos DB multi-region writes with a suitable conflict-resolution plan, because multiwrite placement reduces dependence on a sole write region. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves clients reconnect to the designated available region without manual account reconfiguration.

C would instead validate the other design where a domestic object workload must remain available after one availability-zone failure within a single region. That evidence is consistent with select zone-redundant Azure Blob Storage in a supported region, because intra-region synchronous replication protects against single-zone hardware loss. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves clients reconnect to the designated available region without manual account reconfiguration.

D would instead validate the other design where a stateless VM-based application must continue serving users if one availability zone fails. That evidence is consistent with distribute redundant VM instances across availability zones behind an appropriate load balancer, because zonal distribution reduces dependence on one physical failure domain. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves clients reconnect to the designated available region without manual account reconfiguration.

“Use eligible read-access geo-zone-redundant Azure Storage” relies on this Azure capability: zone-redundant primary plus secondary read access supports a defined resilience objective. This workload involves A global write-intensive Cosmos DB application needs writes accepted by multiple regions where supported. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: multiwrite placement reduces dependence on a sole write region. Thus “Use Azure Cosmos DB multi-region writes with a suitable conflict-resolution plan” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Enable the supported zone-redundant Managed Instance configuration” relies on this Azure capability: zone redundancy mitigates zonal loss for the managed SQL instance. This workload involves A global write-intensive Cosmos DB application needs writes accepted by multiple regions where supported. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: multiwrite placement reduces dependence on a sole write region. Thus “Use Azure Cosmos DB multi-region writes with a suitable conflict-resolution plan” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Select zone-redundant Azure Blob Storage in a supported region” relies on this Azure capability: intra-region synchronous replication protects against single-zone hardware loss. This workload involves A global write-intensive Cosmos DB application needs writes accepted by multiple regions where supported. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: multiwrite placement reduces dependence on a sole write region. Thus “Use Azure Cosmos DB multi-region writes with a suitable conflict-resolution plan” is the applicable architecture choice.

A would instead validate the other design where an Azure SQL Managed Instance must tolerate local datacenter zone failure where the feature is supported. That evidence is consistent with enable the supported zone-redundant Managed Instance configuration, because zone redundancy mitigates zonal loss for the managed SQL instance. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves writes from both eligible regions replicate and conflicts follow the documented policy.

B would instead validate the other design where a domestic object workload must remain available after one availability-zone failure within a single region. That evidence is consistent with select zone-redundant Azure Blob Storage in a supported region, because intra-region synchronous replication protects against single-zone hardware loss. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves writes from both eligible regions replicate and conflicts follow the documented policy.

C would instead validate the other design where a media service must tolerate local zone loss and retain a readable secondary-region copy for supported blobs. That evidence is consistent with use eligible read-access geo-zone-redundant Azure Storage, because zone-redundant primary plus secondary read access supports a defined resilience objective. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves writes from both eligible regions replicate and conflicts follow the documented policy.

“Use eligible read-access geo-zone-redundant Azure Storage” relies on this Azure capability: zone-redundant primary plus secondary read access supports a defined resilience objective. This workload involves A proposed Azure workload has the following constraint: A domestic object workload must remain available after one availability-zone failure within a single region. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: intra-region synchronous replication protects against single-zone hardware loss. Thus “Select zone-redundant Azure Blob Storage in a supported region” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Use an Azure SQL failover group with appropriately configured secondary databases” relies on this Azure capability: failover groups coordinate failover endpoints and regional replicas. This workload involves A proposed Azure workload has the following constraint: A domestic object workload must remain available after one availability-zone failure within a single region. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: intra-region synchronous replication protects against single-zone hardware loss. Thus “Select zone-redundant Azure Blob Storage in a supported region” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Provision Azure Files with zone-redundant storage in a supported region and tier” relies on this Azure capability: zonal file replication helps the managed file share survive local-zone failure. This workload involves A proposed Azure workload has the following constraint: A domestic object workload must remain available after one availability-zone failure within a single region. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: intra-region synchronous replication protects against single-zone hardware loss. Thus “Select zone-redundant Azure Blob Storage in a supported region” is the applicable architecture choice.

A would instead validate the other design where a media service must tolerate local zone loss and retain a readable secondary-region copy for supported blobs. That evidence is consistent with use eligible read-access geo-zone-redundant Azure Storage, because zone-redundant primary plus secondary read access supports a defined resilience objective. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves blob GET requests succeed after the test zone becomes unavailable.

C would instead validate the other design where a team needs a managed shared SMB file store resilient to an availability-zone failure. That evidence is consistent with provision Azure Files with zone-redundant storage in a supported region and tier, because zonal file replication helps the managed file share survive local-zone failure. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves blob GET requests succeed after the test zone becomes unavailable.

D would instead validate the other design where a transactional application needs connection redirection between Azure SQL databases in two regions. That evidence is consistent with use an Azure SQL failover group with appropriately configured secondary databases, because failover groups coordinate failover endpoints and regional replicas. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves blob GET requests succeed after the test zone becomes unavailable.

“Provision Azure Files with zone-redundant storage in a supported region and tier” relies on this Azure capability: zonal file replication helps the managed file share survive local-zone failure. This workload involves During a cloud design workshop, stakeholders explain: A media service must tolerate local zone loss and retain a readable secondary-region copy for supported blobs. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: zone-redundant primary plus secondary read access supports a defined resilience objective. Thus “Use eligible read-access geo-zone-redundant Azure Storage” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Configure multiple Cosmos DB regions with automatic failover and tested preferred regions” relies on this Azure capability: cosmos DB can redirect service to another configured region after a failure. This workload involves During a cloud design workshop, stakeholders explain: A media service must tolerate local zone loss and retain a readable secondary-region copy for supported blobs. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: zone-redundant primary plus secondary read access supports a defined resilience objective. Thus “Use eligible read-access geo-zone-redundant Azure Storage” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Use a Virtual Machine Scale Set with redundant instances and appropriate health integration” relies on this Azure capability: a scale set supports coordinated scaling and replacing unhealthy compute instances. This workload involves During a cloud design workshop, stakeholders explain: A media service must tolerate local zone loss and retain a readable secondary-region copy for supported blobs. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: zone-redundant primary plus secondary read access supports a defined resilience objective. Thus “Use eligible read-access geo-zone-redundant Azure Storage” is the applicable architecture choice.

A would instead validate the other design where a globally used Cosmos DB application needs automatic regional failover for a single-write-region account. That evidence is consistent with configure multiple Cosmos DB regions with automatic failover and tested preferred regions, because cosmos DB can redirect service to another configured region after a failure. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves the secondary endpoint can serve permitted reads when its replication and availability permit.

B would instead validate the other design where a team needs a managed shared SMB file store resilient to an availability-zone failure. That evidence is consistent with provision Azure Files with zone-redundant storage in a supported region and tier, because zonal file replication helps the managed file share survive local-zone failure. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves the secondary endpoint can serve permitted reads when its replication and availability permit.

C would instead validate the other design where an asynchronous background service running on Azure VMs needs elastic capacity without one VM being a single point of failure. That evidence is consistent with use a Virtual Machine Scale Set with redundant instances and appropriate health integration, because a scale set supports coordinated scaling and replacing unhealthy compute instances. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves the secondary endpoint can serve permitted reads when its replication and availability permit.

“Configure multiple Cosmos DB regions with automatic failover and tested preferred regions” relies on this Azure capability: cosmos DB can redirect service to another configured region after a failure. This workload involves A team needs a managed shared SMB file store resilient to an availability-zone failure. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: zonal file replication helps the managed file share survive local-zone failure. Thus “Provision Azure Files with zone-redundant storage in a supported region and tier” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Use Azure Cosmos DB multi-region writes with a suitable conflict-resolution plan” relies on this Azure capability: multiwrite placement reduces dependence on a sole write region. This workload involves A team needs a managed shared SMB file store resilient to an availability-zone failure. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: zonal file replication helps the managed file share survive local-zone failure. Thus “Provision Azure Files with zone-redundant storage in a supported region and tier” is the applicable architecture choice.

“Choose an eligible zone-redundant Azure App Service plan and adequate instance count” relies on this Azure capability: zone redundancy spreads platform instances across available zones. This workload involves A team needs a managed shared SMB file store resilient to an availability-zone failure. The decisive Azure design mechanism is: zonal file replication helps the managed file share survive local-zone failure. Thus “Provision Azure Files with zone-redundant storage in a supported region and tier” is the applicable architecture choice.

A would instead validate the other design where a managed web application must keep serving through single-zone datacenter failure. That evidence is consistent with choose an eligible zone-redundant Azure App Service plan and adequate instance count, because zone redundancy spreads platform instances across available zones. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves clients reconnect and read the same share data after a zone becomes unavailable.

C would instead validate the other design where a global write-intensive Cosmos DB application needs writes accepted by multiple regions where supported. That evidence is consistent with use Azure Cosmos DB multi-region writes with a suitable conflict-resolution plan, because multiwrite placement reduces dependence on a sole write region. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves clients reconnect and read the same share data after a zone becomes unavailable.

D would instead validate the other design where a globally used Cosmos DB application needs automatic regional failover for a single-write-region account. That evidence is consistent with configure multiple Cosmos DB regions with automatic failover and tested preferred regions, because cosmos DB can redirect service to another configured region after a failure. It does not demonstrate that the target case achieves clients reconnect and read the same share data after a zone becomes unavailable.