Exam AZ-301 topic 17 question 1 discussion

Why not GRS? It doesn't say we need to read data from the backup and we need to minimize costs.

Everyone repeat after me and burn this into your mind: RA-GRS IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN GRS. This makes sense too, because with RA-GRS, Microsoft must make sure that data is available to be read from multiple locations. This means more networking and added complexity. With GRS, they activate a secondary entry-point when they monitor an issue with the primary region: single entrypoint and less networking and less complexity = less expensive.

C is correct answer.

maybe some text is missing from the question. The only reason for RA-GRS is if you need read access to the secondary region, otherwise GRS

it is B

GRS is less expensive than RA-GRS but it does meet requirements outlined in this question "The difference between GRS and RA GRS is fairly simple, GRS only allows to be read in the secondary zone in the even of a failover from the primary to secondary while RA GRS allows the option to read in the secondary whenever" So answer is RA-GRS (as GRS is available ONLY in case of Primary Region failure) Requirement to minimize cost is just a general requirement that is part of almost all questions in here; don't worry about cost saving if this will result in wrong solution

Answer is GRS (key word : minimize costs)

I agree it should be GSR, B

GRS automatically does not replicates the data to a second Azure region untill unless microsoft initiates failover which is why it should be RA-GRS

B. tables in an Azure Storage account that uses geo-redundant storage (GRS)

GRS ans RA-GRS replicates to 3 more geo locations, but as per the requirement gven, RA_GRS only give an additional replication for that matter with read access though read access is not explicitly mentioned as requirement.

2 criteria :- Answer is correct. 1. Storage account to be accessed via RESt APIs 2. Minimise cost :-

replicates as opposed to backup means it reads data from multiple region? is so RA-GRS

Perhaps it's the fact that you need to "ensure" that the data can be read via REST ... in case of GRS you're not 100% sure.

From what I've read, RA-GRS is not in itself more expensive than GRS. The extra costs occur if the data from the RA region is read, i.e., egress costs. The only extra inconvenience regarding RA-GRS is that one has to distinguish between the primary and secondary region.

agree, why not GRS?