DOP-C02 Exam Dumps : AWS Certified DevOps Engineer - Professional

The best solution to implement failover for the application is to use CloudFront origin groups. Origin groups allow CloudFront to automatically switch to a secondary origin when the primary origin is unavailable or returns specific HTTP status codes that indicate a failure1. This way, CloudFront can serve the requests from the secondary ALB in the secondary Region without any delay or redirection. To set up origin groups, the DevOps engineer needs to create a new origin on the distribution for the secondary ALB, create a new origin group with the original ALB as the primary origin and the secondary ALB as the secondary origin, and configure the origin group to fail over for HTTP 5xx status codes. Then, the DevOps engineer needs to update the default behavior to use the origin group instead of the single origin2.

The other options are not as effective or efficient as the solution in option B. Option A is not suitable because creating a second CloudFront distribution will increase the complexity and cost of the application. Moreover, using Route 53 alias records with a failover policy will introduce some delay in detecting and switching to the secondary CloudFront distribution, which may not meet the zero-second RTO requirement. Option C is not feasible because CloudFront does not support using Route 53 alias records as origins3. Option D is not advisable because using a CloudFront function to redirect the requests to the secondary ALB will add an extra round-trip and latency to the failover process, which may also not meet the zero-second RTO requirement.

1: Optimizing high availability with CloudFront origin failover - Amazon CloudFront

2: Creating an origin group - Amazon CloudFront

3: Values That You Specify When You Create or Update a Web Distribution - Amazon CloudFront

AWS recommends centralizing CodeDeploy agent logs in Amazon CloudWatch Logs for efficient analysis. By configuring the CloudWatch agent or using the CodeDeploy console integration, you can stream logs in near-real time and query them with CloudWatch Logs Insights. This enables filtering by deployment lifecycle events, saving time versus manually connecting to instances. Refer to AWS documentation section “Monitoring and troubleshooting deployments with CodeDeploy and CloudWatch.”

The correct answer is A.

Option A is correct because it meets the requirements with the most operational efficiency. Updating the ecommerce application to emit a JSON object to a CloudWatch log group for each processed transaction is a simple and cost-effective way to collect the data needed for the dashboard. Using CloudWatch Logs Insights to query the log group and to visualize the results in a pie chart format is also a convenient and integrated solution that leverages the existing CloudWatch dashboards. Attaching the results to the desired CloudWatch dashboard is straightforward and does not require any additional steps or services.

Option B is incorrect because it introduces unnecessary complexity and cost. Updating the ecommerce application to emit a JSON object to an Amazon S3 bucket for each processed transaction is a valid way to store the data, but it requires creating and managing an S3 bucket and its permissions. Using Amazon Athena to query the S3 bucket and to visualize the results in a pie chart format is also a valid way to analyze the data, but it incurs charges based on the amount of data scanned by each query. Exporting the results from Athena and attaching them to the desired CloudWatch dashboard is also an extra step that adds more overhead and latency.

Option C is incorrect because it uses AWS X-Ray for an inappropriate purpose. Updating the ecommerce application to use AWS X-Ray for instrumentation is a good practice for monitoring and tracing distributed applications, but it is not designed for aggregating product transaction details. Creating a new X-Ray subsegment and adding an annotation for each processed transaction is possible, but it would clutter the X-Ray service map and make it harder to debug performance issues. Using X-Ray traces to query the data and to visualize the results in a pie chart format is also possible, but it would require custom code and logic that are not supported by X-Ray natively. Attaching the results to the desired CloudWatch dashboard is also not supported by X-Ray directly, and would require additional steps or services.

Option D is incorrect because it introduces unnecessary complexity and cost. Updating the ecommerce application to emit a JSON object to a CloudWatch log group for each processed transaction is a simple and cost-effective way to collect the data needed for the dashboard, as in option A. However, creating an AWS Lambda function to aggregate and write the results to Amazon DynamoDB is redundant, as CloudWatch Logs Insights can already perform aggregation queries on log data. Creating a Lambda subscription filter for the log file is also redundant, as CloudWatch Logs Insights can already access log data directly. Attaching the results to the desired CloudWatch dashboard would also require additional steps or services, as DynamoDB does not support native integration with CloudWatch dashboards.