You have 1,000 virtual machines hosted on the Hyper-V hosts in a data center.
You plan to migrate all the virtual machines to an Azure pay-as-you-go subscription.
You need to identify which expenditure model to use for the planned Azure solution.
Which expenditure model should you identify?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.A
One of the major changes that you will face when you move from on-premises cloud to the public cloud is the switch from capital expenditure (buying hardware) to operating expenditure (paying for service as you use it). This switch also requires more careful management of your costs. The benefit of the cloud is that you can fundamentally and positively affect the cost of a service you use by merely shutting down or resizing it when it's not needed.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/cloud-adoption/appendix/azure-scaffoldThe correct answer for this question is C. capital.
Explanation: The capital expenditure (CapEx) model involves upfront investments to acquire or build assets, which are then used over an extended period. The CapEx model is typically used for long-term investments such as infrastructure, facilities, and equipment.
In this scenario, you have already made the investment in the Hyper-V hosts and the virtual machines, which are considered assets. Therefore, the CapEx model is the most appropriate expenditure model for this planned Azure solution.
Operational expenditure (OpEx) model involves ongoing expenses such as salaries, utilities, maintenance, and cloud services usage fees. Elastic expenditure is similar to OpEx, but it refers to the ability to quickly adjust the resources used in response to demand fluctuations.
The scalable expenditure model refers to the ability to easily increase or decrease resources as needed, without significant upfront investment, and is often associated with cloud services.
In summary, for the planned migration of the 1,000 virtual machines to Azure, the most appropriate expenditure model is the capital expenditure (CapEx) model since you have already made the investment in the Hyper-V hosts and virtual machines.
The solution mentioned in the question states that one virtual machine and two availability zones will be used for deploying a critical LOB (Line of Business) application to Azure, while ensuring a guaranteed availability of 99.99 percent. The question is whether this solution meets the stated goal or not.
An availability zone is a physically separate data center within an Azure region, with its own power, cooling, and networking infrastructure. The use of multiple availability zones ensures that even if one zone experiences a failure, the application can continue to run in another zone.
In this scenario, using two availability zones means that the application will have redundancy across two separate physical data centers within the same region. This helps to ensure that the application remains available in the event of a failure in one of the zones.
However, the use of only one virtual machine in this solution raises questions about whether it can provide sufficient redundancy to meet the requirement of 99.99 percent availability. If the virtual machine fails, the application will go down, regardless of the availability zones. Therefore, it is not clear if the use of one virtual machine alone can provide the necessary level of availability.
It is worth noting that there are different ways to achieve high availability in Azure, and the best solution will depend on the specific requirements of the application. In general, using multiple virtual machines in conjunction with multiple availability zones can provide a higher level of redundancy and availability than using only one virtual machine.
Based on the information provided in the question, it is not clear whether the solution meets the goal of ensuring a guaranteed availability of 99.99 percent with as few virtual machines and availability zones as possible. Therefore, the answer to this question is B. No.