An organization's cloud team would like to reduce template sprawl. Below are the applications they want to deploy using cloud templates: - MS SQL and Web IIS applications on OS types Windows 2016…

Question

Options

• ACreate an image mapping for Windows and RHEL OS types
• BCreate a Cloud Template for each application type with a combination of OS types
• CCreate a Cloud Template or upgrade an existing one with user input to select the OS type
• DCreate a Cloud Template for each OS type and have a user input option to pick the application
• ECreate image mappings for OS types Windows 2016, Windows 2019, RHEL7 and RHEL8

• A
  15% (3)
• B
  5% (1)
• C
  5% (1)
• D
  75% (15)

Explanation

Options D and E work together as a coherent strategy: D reduces sprawl by creating just two templates (one per OS family - Windows, RHEL), each with a user-selectable application input rather than a separate template per app. E complements this by creating precise image mappings for each specific OS version (Windows 2016, Windows 2019, RHEL7, RHEL8), so those two templates can dynamically resolve the correct cloud image at deploy time without hardcoding versions.

Why the distractors fail:

• A is too coarse - mapping only "Windows" and "RHEL" generically loses the version granularity (2016 vs. 2019, RHEL7 vs. RHEL8) that the org actually needs.
• B does the opposite of reducing sprawl - creating a template per app-plus-OS combination would produce many templates (MS SQL+Win2016, IIS+Win2019, WebLogic+RHEL7, etc.).
• C sounds appealing but combining Windows and RHEL apps into a single template with OS-type user input is architecturally unsound - Windows apps can't run on RHEL, so a single mega-template would require complex conditional logic and is fragile.

Memory tip: Think "fewer templates, smarter mappings" - organize templates by OS family (D), and let image mappings handle the specific versions (E). The template layer stays lean; the mapping layer handles the details.

No community discussion yet for this question.