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

Google Professional Cloud DevOps Engineer Exam - Topic 2 Question 35 Discussion

You support a service that recently had an outage. The outage was caused by a new release that exhausted the service memory resources. You rolled back the release successfully to mitigate the impact on users. You are now in charge of the post-mortem for the outage. You want to follow Site Reliability Engineering practices when developing the post-mortem. What should you do?
B) Focus on identifying the contributing causes of the incident rather than the individual responsible for the cause.
A) Focus on developing new features rather than avoiding the outages from recurring.
C) Plan individual meetings with all the engineers involved. Determine who approved and pushed the new release to production.
D) Use the Git history to find the related code commit. Prevent the engineer who made that commit from working on production services.

Google Professional Cloud DevOps Engineer Exam - Topic 2 Question 35 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Cloud DevOps Engineer exam
Question #: 35
Topic #: 2
[All Professional Cloud DevOps Engineer Questions]

You support a service that recently had an outage. The outage was caused by a new release that exhausted the service memory resources. You rolled back the release successfully to mitigate the impact on users. You are now in charge of the post-mortem for the outage. You want to follow Site Reliability Engineering practices when developing the post-mortem. What should you do?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Martina at May 08, 2022, 01:24 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Professional Cloud DevOps Engineer Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Shaniqua
9 months ago
D seems extreme, let's focus on improvement instead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annamae
9 months ago
Wait, are we really thinking about punishing someone? That’s harsh!
upvoted 0 times
...
Emmett
9 months ago
A is a terrible idea, we can't just ignore outages!
upvoted 0 times
...
Jacki
9 months ago
I agree with B, focusing on causes is key!
upvoted 0 times
...
Eric
9 months ago
Definitely B, we need to learn from this, not blame anyone.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annabelle
10 months ago
I recall that we should avoid punitive measures in post-mortems. Option D seems counterproductive, but I’m not entirely sure if that’s the right takeaway.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eliz
10 months ago
This question reminds me of a similar practice one we did about post-mortems. I think identifying contributing factors is crucial, so I would lean towards option B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Goldie
10 months ago
I'm a bit unsure about the best approach here. I feel like we should definitely avoid pointing fingers, but I also wonder if we need to hold someone accountable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Isaiah
10 months ago
I remember we discussed the importance of focusing on the causes of incidents rather than blaming individuals. I think option B aligns with that principle.
upvoted 0 times
...
Valentine
10 months ago
Okay, I remember learning about ISO 14001 in one of my classes. I think it has to do with environmental management standards, but I'll review the question to refresh my memory.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristel
10 months ago
The key here is to prevent access to the underlying data while still allowing export of the summarized visualizations. I'll need to explore the options carefully to find the best solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julio
10 months ago
I'm not really sure about this one. I remember studying about encryption but can't recall its relation to blockchain visibility specifically.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel