Lift And Shift Default — Azure Solutions Architect (AZ-305)
You defaulted to migrating as-is when the scenario called for modernization or re-architecture.
IaaS Migration and Unchanged Operational Overhead
Rehosting onto Azure VMs minimizes migration risk and preserves the existing application unchanged. It also preserves patching schedules, capacity planning cycles, and uptime monitoring responsibilities. When a scenario specifies reduced operational burden, lower long-term cost, or improved elasticity as stated outcomes, rehosting fails all three. The VMs run in Azure; the management model stays on-premises. When the scenario names cost or elasticity as outcomes, refactor or rebuild targets score; when it names risk minimization, rehosting does. Read the stated outcomes before comparing migration strategies, not after. Outcome language in the scenario eliminates entire service categories before feature comparison begins.
The Scenario
A team is migrating their on-premises Jenkins-based CI/CD pipeline to Azure. You recommend Azure VMs with the same Jenkins configuration, plugins, and manual deployment scripts. The scenario says "improve deployment velocity, reduce pipeline maintenance, and enable self-service releases." The correct answer is Azure Pipelines with YAML pipeline definitions, Azure Artifacts for package management, and deployment slots on App Service for zero-downtime releases. Moving Jenkins to a VM preserves plugin maintenance, security patching, credential management, and manual pipeline configuration. Azure Pipelines eliminates all of that — Microsoft manages the build agents, and YAML pipelines are version-controlled alongside the code. The exam tests whether you recognize that the migration goal is modernization, not relocation.
How to Spot It
- •Azure migration strategy follows the same spectrum as AWS. Rehost (VMs) preserves operational burden. Replatform (App Service, Azure SQL) reduces it. Refactor (Azure Functions, Container Apps) eliminates it. Match the migration target to the stated goal, not the source architecture.
- •Azure Migrate assesses and replicates on-premises workloads to Azure VMs, but the result is still VMs you manage. If the scenario says "reduce management effort," Azure Migrate is the migration tool but not the target architecture — the target should be a PaaS service.
- •DevOps-specific migration: Jenkins on VMs is a lift-and-shift trap. Azure Pipelines or GitHub Actions with Azure-native integrations provide managed build agents, secret management via Key Vault, and native deployment to App Service, AKS, and Functions without maintaining build infrastructure.
Decision Rules
Whether to use Azure Database Migration Service to migrate the SQL Server database tier to Azure SQL Managed Instance as Migration Wave 1 before the application servers move, versus collapsing all tiers into a single IaaS lift-and-shift wave with SQL Server on an Azure VM.
Whether to migrate the SQL Server tier to Azure SQL Managed Instance via Azure Database Migration Service online migration (satisfying wave-one dependency ordering, zero-downtime cutover, and managed-service overhead reduction) or to rehost SQL Server on Azure IaaS VMs via Azure Migrate (preserving familiar architecture but retaining full OS/patch management burden and violating the CAF modernization constraint).
Determine whether the shared file server should be rehosted to an Azure VM via Azure Site Recovery or migrated to a managed storage service in wave 1 before dependent tiers move, given the CAF constraint that post-migration operational overhead must be reduced.
Domain Coverage
Difficulty Breakdown
Related Patterns