A novice team is developing their first e-commerce application that will run in a Red Hat Openshift cluster in IBM Cloud. They built a single microservice to handle two distinct functionalities…

Question

Options

• ASeparate the functionalities into two distinct microservices. Each microservice should have a
• BCombine other business functionalities into the single microservice. A selfcontained binary is
• CUse Source-to-Image (S2I) to analyze runtime metrics. A microservice should always provide
• DRoutinely reload cluster nodes to achieve high resiliency and loose coupling of application

• A
  77% (24)
• B
  6% (2)
• C
  13% (4)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

Separating inventory and payment into distinct microservices (A) directly addresses all three goals: each service scales independently based on its own load, payment processing can be isolated with stricter security policies (network policies, secrets, RBAC), and a failure in one service doesn't cascade to the other, improving resiliency. This aligns with the core microservices principle of single responsibility.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B is the opposite of good microservices design - consolidating more functionality into one service creates a monolith, worsening scalability and resilience.
• C misrepresents S2I's purpose; Source-to-Image is a build tool that creates container images from source code, not a runtime metrics or analysis tool.
• D is operationally destructive - routinely reloading cluster nodes causes downtime and doesn't achieve loose coupling, which is a design concern, not an infrastructure cycling concern.

Memory tip: Think "SPRM" - Single Purpose, Resilient, and More Secure. Whenever a microservice handles two unrelated domains (like inventory vs. payments), splitting it satisfies all three exam keywords (scalability, security, resiliency) simultaneously, making A the obvious answer on any cloud-native architecture question.

No community discussion yet for this question.