Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Amazon BDS-C00 Exam - Topic 13 Question 95 Discussion

Your application uses CloudFormation to orchestrate your application's resources. During your testing phase before application went live, your Amazon RDS instance type was changed and caused the instance to be re-created, resulting in the loss of test data.How should you prevent this from occurring in the future?
B) Use an AWS CloudFormation stack policy to deny updates to the instance. Only allow UpdateStack permission to IAM principles that are denied SetStackPolicy
A) Within the AWS CloudFormation parameter with which users can select the Amazon RDS instance type, set AllowedValues to only contain the current instance type
C) In the AWS CloudFormation template, set the AWS::RDS::DBInstance's DBInstanceClass property to be read-only
D) Subscribe to the AWS CloudFormation notification ''BeforeResourceUpdate'' and call CancelStackUpdate if the resource identified is the Amazon RDS instance
E) In the AWS ClousFormation template, set the DeletionPolicy of the AWS::RDS::DBInstance's DeletionPolicy property to ''Retain''

Amazon BDS-C00 Exam - Topic 13 Question 95 Discussion

Actual exam question for Amazon's BDS-C00 exam
Question #: 95
Topic #: 13
[All BDS-C00 Questions]

Your application uses CloudFormation to orchestrate your application's resources. During your testing phase before application went live, your Amazon RDS instance type was changed and caused the instance to be re-created, resulting in the loss of test data.

How should you prevent this from occurring in the future?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Renea at Jun 19, 2024, 11:10 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium BDS-C00 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Katie
6 months ago
I like D for the notification aspect, but it might be too complex.
upvoted 0 times
...
Danilo
6 months ago
AllowedValues in A could work, but it feels a bit limiting.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chau
7 months ago
Wait, can you really set a property to read-only in CloudFormation? Sounds odd.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
7 months ago
I disagree, option B seems safer to prevent accidental updates.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hester
7 months ago
I think option E is the best choice. Retaining the DB instance is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lon
7 months ago
I feel like the DeletionPolicy option is a good choice, especially to retain data, but I wonder if it would still allow for instance type changes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Winfred
7 months ago
I practiced a question about making properties read-only, but I’m uncertain if that applies to the DBInstanceClass in this case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audry
8 months ago
I think using a stack policy sounds familiar, but I can't recall if it really stops updates or just restricts who can make them.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronnie
8 months ago
I remember discussing how setting AllowedValues could limit changes, but I'm not sure if it would completely prevent the instance from being recreated.
upvoted 0 times
...
Markus
8 months ago
This is a great question that really tests our understanding of CloudFormation. I think Option E with the DeletionPolicy is the simplest and most straightforward solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cyndy
8 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the different options. I'll need to walk through each one carefully and make sure I understand the tradeoffs before deciding on the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Madonna
8 months ago
Okay, I've got a strategy. I'm going to focus on the stack policy and permissions approach in Option B. That seems like the most robust way to prevent unauthorized changes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jani
8 months ago
Hmm, I think the key here is to find a way to lock down the instance type so it can't be changed accidentally. Option A looks promising, but I'll need to double-check the details.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kizzy
8 months ago
This seems like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully review the CloudFormation documentation to understand the different options for protecting against unintended resource updates.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ernestine
8 months ago
I'm a little confused on the difference between vertical and horizontal analysis. I know one looks at percentages and the other looks at changes over time, but I'm not sure which is which. I'll have to review my notes to make sure I have this right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashton
8 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident on this one. Since the MAC address is unknown, the request will get flooded, and the only response will come from the PE node that has the MAC address in its local FDB. I'm going to select B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dortha
8 months ago
I'm confident that option C is the correct answer. The master schedule is all about aligning the company's operations to meet customer demand, so that's the best indicator of its effectiveness.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicia
1 year ago
Option E is the way to go! Retaining the instance on deletion is the best way to ensure your test data is safe. Plus, it's a great way to keep your DBA happy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Remedios
1 year ago
Haha, option A is like trying to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. Limiting the allowed values? That's like putting a lock on a door that's already been kicked down.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lemuel
1 year ago
C'mon, option C? Making the instance type read-only? That's too restrictive. What if I need to upgrade the instance in the future? I'd go with option E and retain the instance on deletion.
upvoted 0 times
Maryln
11 months ago
Yes, it's always better to err on the side of caution when it comes to important data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cletus
11 months ago
That's a good point, retaining the instance would prevent data loss in case of accidental deletion.
upvoted 0 times
...
Doyle
11 months ago
I agree, option E seems like a better choice to retain the instance on deletion.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jina
12 months ago
Option C is too restrictive, what if you need to upgrade the instance in the future?
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gaston
1 year ago
I like option D. Subscribing to the CloudFormation events and canceling the update if it's the RDS instance is a proactive approach. That way, you can catch the change before it happens.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jamie
1 year ago
Option B seems like the best solution to prevent unwanted updates to the RDS instance. Restricting the IAM permissions is a good way to ensure only authorized personnel can make changes.
upvoted 0 times
Gerald
1 year ago
A) Within the AWS CloudFormation parameter with which users can select the Amazon RDS instance type, set AllowedValues to only contain the current instance type
upvoted 0 times
...
Candra
1 year ago
E) In the AWS ClousFormation template, set the DeletionPolicy of the AWS::RDS::DBInstance's DeletionPolicy property to ''Retain''
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicidad
1 year ago
B) Use an AWS CloudFormation stack policy to deny updates to the instance. Only allow UpdateStack permission to IAM principles that are denied SetStackPolicy
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Madelyn
1 year ago
I'm not sure about option A. I think option D could also work by canceling the update if the RDS instance is being changed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Novella
1 year ago
I agree with Thersa. Option A seems like the most straightforward way to avoid this issue in the future.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thersa
1 year ago
I think option A is the best choice. By limiting the instance type options, we can prevent accidental changes.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel