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 Network Engineer Exam - Topic 8 Question 64 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Cloud Network Engineer exam
Question #: 64
Topic #: 8
[All Professional Cloud Network Engineer Questions]

You have a storage bucket that contains two objects. Cloud CDN is enabled on the bucket, and both objects have been successfully cached. Now you want to make sure that one of the two objects will not be cached anymore, and will always be served to the internet directly from the origin.

What should you do?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Cammy at Feb 07, 2023, 12:57 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lisbeth
5 months ago
Definitely D! I've done this before, and it works like a charm.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eve
5 months ago
Yeah, but isn't it better to just keep things public for easier access?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kent
6 months ago
Wait, does invalidating cached copies really work that easily?
upvoted 0 times
...
Yolando
6 months ago
I think B is a bit overkill, just for one object.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alexia
6 months ago
Option D is the way to go! Cache-Control is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carri
6 months ago
I vaguely recall that lifecycle rules are more about managing object retention rather than caching. So I don't think option C is relevant here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kris
6 months ago
I practiced a similar question where we had to manage caching settings. I think adding a Cache-Control entry is a common solution, so D sounds plausible.
upvoted 0 times
...
Iluminada
6 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like creating a new bucket just to change the privacy settings seems a bit excessive. Option B might not be the best.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharan
6 months ago
I think I remember something about Cache-Control headers being important for caching behavior. Maybe option D is the right choice?
upvoted 0 times
...
Viva
6 months ago
I'm pretty sure the Coastal Zone Management Act was passed in the 1970s, so I'll go with option C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Florinda
6 months ago
This question seems straightforward. I think the answer is B - cost tolerance can be fixed or flexed in an agile context.
upvoted 0 times
...
Derrick
6 months ago
I'm a little confused by the wording here. What exactly do they mean by "qualitative and quantitative insights about the level of risk"? I'll need to re-read the question a few times to make sure I understand what they're asking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tammara
7 months ago
Wait, what exactly are we talking about here? I feel like I've seen this before but can't remember the details.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mitsue
11 months ago
Option D, no question. Anything else is just going to create more work than necessary. Plus, who wants to deal with a whole new bucket just for one object?
upvoted 0 times
...
Beckie
11 months ago
Ah, the age-old question of how to override a CDN cache. I've been there before. Option D is the way to go, no doubt about it.
upvoted 0 times
Jackie
10 months ago
That makes sense. Option D seems like the most direct solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Scot
10 months ago
D) Add a Cache-Control entry with value private to the metadata of the object you don't want to be cached anymore. Invalidate all the previously cached copies.
upvoted 0 times
...
Trevor
10 months ago
A) Ensure that the object you don't want to be cached anymore is not shared publicly.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Nathan
11 months ago
D for 'Definitely the right answer'. And also 'Didn't have to think too hard about this one'.
upvoted 0 times
Iesha
10 months ago
B) Create a new storage bucket, and move the object you don't want to be cached anymore inside it. Then edit the bucket setting and enable the private attribute.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mel
10 months ago
D) Add a Cache-Control entry with value private to the metadata of the object you don't want to be cached anymore. Invalidate all the previously cached copies.
upvoted 0 times
...
Clare
10 months ago
A) Ensure that the object you don't want to be cached anymore is not shared publicly.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dexter
12 months ago
Option D - the 'clear cache and start over' approach. Classic IT solution, am I right?
upvoted 0 times
Yan
10 months ago
Yes, sometimes starting fresh is the best way to go in IT.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mozell
10 months ago
D) Add a Cache-Control entry with value private to the metadata of the object you don't want to be cached anymore. Invalidate all the previously cached copies.
upvoted 0 times
...
Belen
11 months ago
A) Ensure that the object you don't want to be cached anymore is not shared publicly.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rene
1 year ago
But wouldn't adding a Cache-Control entry be a more direct way to ensure the object is not cached anymore?
upvoted 0 times
...
Audria
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is B) Create a new storage bucket and move the object inside it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rene
1 year ago
I think the answer is D) Add a Cache-Control entry with value private to the metadata of the object.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel