Amazon Web Services DOP-C02 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

To implement failover for the application to the secondary Region so that HTTP GET requests meet the desired RTO, the DevOps engineer should use the following solution:

Create a new origin on the distribution for the secondary ALB. A CloudFront origin is the source of the content that CloudFront delivers to viewers. By creating a new origin for the secondary ALB, the DevOps engineer can configure CloudFront to route traffic to the secondary Region when the primary Region is unavailable1

Create a new origin group. Set the original ALB as the primary origin. Configure the origin group to fail over for HTTP 5xx status codes. An origin group is a logical grouping of two origins: a primary origin and a secondary origin. By creating an origin group, the DevOps engineer can specify which origin CloudFront should use as a fallback when the primary origin fails. The DevOps engineer can also define which HTTP status codes should trigger a failover from the primary origin to the secondary origin. By setting the original ALB as the primary origin and configuring the origin group to fail over for HTTP 5xx status codes, the DevOps engineer can ensure that CloudFront will switch to the secondary ALB when the primary ALB returns server errors2

Update the default behavior to use the origin group. A behavior is a set of rules that CloudFront applies when it receives requests for specific URLs or file types. The default behavior applies to all requests that do not match any other behaviors. By updating the default behavior to use the origin group, the DevOps engineer can enable failover routing for all requests that are sent to the distribution3

This solution will meet the requirements because it will automate the failover of the application to the secondary Region with zero-second RTO. When CloudFront receives an HTTP GET request, it will first try to route it to the primary ALB in the primary Region. If the primary ALB is healthy and returns a successful response, CloudFront will deliver it to the viewer. If the primary ALB is unhealthy or returns an HTTP 5xx status code, CloudFront will automatically route the request to the secondary ALB in the secondary Region and deliver its response to the viewer.

The other options are not correct because they either do not provide zero-second RTO or do not work as expected. Creating a second CloudFront distribution that has the secondary ALB as the default origin and creating Amazon Route 53 alias records that have a failover policy is not a good option because it will introduce additional latency and complexity to the solution. Route 53 health checks and DNS propagation can take several minutes or longer, which means that viewers might experience delays or errors when accessing the application during a failover event. Creating Amazon Route 53 alias records that have a failover policy and Evaluate Target Health set to Yes for both ALBs and setting the TTL of both records to O is not a valid option because it will not work with CloudFront distributions. Route 53 does not support health checks for alias records that point to CloudFront distributions, so it cannot detect if an ALB behind a distribution is healthy or not. Creating a CloudFront function that detects HTTP 5xx status codes and returns a 307 Temporary Redirect error response to the secondary ALB is not a valid option because it will not provide zero-second RTO. A 307 Temporary Redirect error response tells viewers to retry their requests with a different URL, which means that viewers will have to make an additional request and wait for another response from CloudFront before reaching the secondary ALB.

1: Adding, Editing, and Deleting Origins - Amazon CloudFront

2: Configuring Origin Failover - Amazon CloudFront

3: Creating or Updating a Cache Behavior - Amazon CloudFront

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of DevOps Engineer documents only:

During an Amazon ECS service deployment, if tasks fail the Elastic Load Balancing target group health checks, Amazon ECS considers those tasks unhealthy and stops and replaces them. This behavior can cause the deployment to remain incomplete because healthy replacement tasks never become available.

Also, if an essential container in the task exits, the entire task stops. Since the question states that the new tasks enter a stopped state soon after launch, an essential container failure is a direct and highly likely cause.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. The IAM role used by the DevOps engineer to update the ECS service does not need RunTask permission for the tasks to remain running after launch. A permission issue here would more likely affect the update action itself rather than cause launched tasks to stop shortly afterward.

C. Although CloudWatch Logs configuration problems can affect logging, the missing log group is not the most likely direct reason for ECS tasks to repeatedly stop in this deployment scenario.

D. The task role provides permissions to the application code running inside the container. It is not the role primarily responsible for launching the task. Task startup is typically related to the task execution role, ECS service behavior, container health, and load balancer checks.

Short Explanation: To meet the requirements, the DevOps engineer should update the SAML assertion to pass the user’s team name, update the IAM role’s trust policy to add an access-team session tag that has the team name, create an IAM permissions boundary in each account, and for each CodeCommit repository, add an access-team tag that has the value set to the name of the associated team.

Updating the SAML assertion to pass the user’s team name allows the DevOps engineer to use IAM tags to identify which team a user belongs to. This can help enforce fine-grained access control based on the user’s team membership1.

Updating the IAM role’s trust policy to add an access-team session tag that has the team name allows the DevOps engineer to use IAM condition keys to restrict access based on the session tag value2. For example, the DevOps engineer can use the aws:PrincipalTag condition key to match the access-team tag of the user with the access-team tag of the repository3.

Creating an IAM permissions boundary in each account allows the DevOps engineer to set the maximum permissions that an identity-based policy can grant to an IAM entity. An entity’s permissions boundary allows it to perform only the actions that are allowed by both its identity-based policies and its permissions boundaries4. For example, the DevOps engineer can use a permissions boundary policy to limit the actions that a user can perform on CodeCommit repositories based on their access-team tag5.

For each CodeCommit repository, adding an access-team tag that has the value set to the name of the associated team allows the DevOps engineer to use resource tags to identify which team manages a repository. This can help enforce fine-grained access control based on the resource tag value6.

The other options are incorrect because:

Creating an approval rule template for each team in the Organizations management account is not a valid option, as approval rule templates are not supported by AWS Organizations. Approval rule templates are specific to CodeCommit and can only be associated with one or more repositories in the same AWS Region where they are created7.

Creating an approval rule template for each account is not a valid option, as approval rule templates are not designed to restrict access to modify branches. Approval rule templates are designed to require approvals from specified users or groups before merging pull requests8.

Attaching an SCP to the accounts is not a valid option, as SCPs are not designed to restrict access based on tags. SCPs are designed to restrict access based on service actions and resources across all users and roles in an organization’s account9.