A team is deciding between Microsoft-hosted agents and self-hosted agents for a new build pipeline in "Azure Pipelines". The build must compile against a licensed compiler that is not present on any standard image, and it must reach an internal package feed that has no public endpoint and is reachable only from inside the company virtual network. Which two requirements, on their own, justify choosing self-hosted agents over Microsoft-hosted agents? Select TWO.
- ASoftware that the team licenses and installs once must persist on the agent across every subsequent build run rather than being reinstalled each time. Correct
- BThe build needs to run in parallel across several jobs at the same time to shorten the queue during busy periods.
- CThe agent must connect to an internal package feed that is published only inside the company virtual network with no public endpoint. Correct
- DThe team wants Microsoft to patch the operating system and keep the toolchain images current without any maintenance effort.
Why A is correct: Microsoft-hosted agents start from a fresh image and are discarded after each job, so custom-licensed tooling does not persist, whereas a self-hosted agent keeps installed software between runs.
Why B is wrong: Concurrency is bought by adding parallel jobs and applies to Microsoft-hosted agents as well, so this is tempting but does not require self-hosting.
Why C is correct: Microsoft-hosted agents run in Microsoft's network and cannot route to a private feed with no public endpoint, so reaching it requires a self-hosted agent placed inside the network.
Why D is wrong: Hands-off patching is a reason to prefer Microsoft-hosted agents, not self-hosted ones where the team owns maintenance, so this argues the opposite way.