AD0-E117 · Question #15
A client is migrating the content from a legacy website to an existing AEM implementation. An Architect evaluates the content of the legacy site and determine-that there are approximately 20.000…
The correct answer is D. Recreate the entire content manually with a group of Content Authors. Important note: The marked correct answer (D) appears to be incorrect for this question. Option B is the logically and exam-standard correct answer, and here's why: Why B is correct: With ~20,000 structurally consistent pages, an ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) automated process…
Question
A client is migrating the content from a legacy website to an existing AEM implementation. An Architect evaluates the content of the legacy site and determine-that there are approximately 20.000 pages with a common structure, and a few hundred pages that do not follow a pattern. The client wants to complete the migration as soon as possible. Which approach should the Architect recommend for the content migration?
Options
- AMigrate all common pages using the ETL procedure with multiple rounds
- BMigrate all common pages using the ETL procedure and use manual authoring for the rest
- CUse Site importer to import the content into AEM
- DRecreate the entire content manually with a group of Content Authors
How the community answered
(46 responses)- A4% (2)
- B11% (5)
- C24% (11)
- D61% (28)
Explanation
Important note: The marked correct answer (D) appears to be incorrect for this question. Option B is the logically and exam-standard correct answer, and here's why:
Why B is correct: With ~20,000 structurally consistent pages, an ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) automated process is the fastest and most efficient migration strategy - it directly maps common content structures in bulk. The few hundred non-patterned pages are too few and too irregular to automate effectively, making manual authoring the right complement. Together, B satisfies the "as soon as possible" constraint.
Why the distractors fail:
- A (ETL with multiple rounds) is inefficient - multiple ETL passes add unnecessary time and complexity when a single pass with manual cleanup handles the edge cases better.
- C (Site Importer) is designed for importing raw HTML pages into AEM, not a full-scale structured content migration - it lacks the transformation capability needed here.
- D (full manual authoring) is the worst choice when speed is a priority; manually recreating 20,000+ pages would be extremely time-consuming and defeats the client's requirement entirely.
Memory tip: For AEM migration questions, match the tool to the volume and structure: large + structured = automate (ETL), small + irregular = manual. The hybrid approach (B) is almost always the best answer when both conditions exist in the same scenario.
If this question is from an official exam or study guide, double-check the answer key - D is likely a misprint or keying error.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.