A company is examining its disaster recovery capability and wants the ability to switch over its daily operations to a secondary AWS Region. The company uses AWS CodeCommit as a source control tool…

Question

Options

• ACreate a CodeCommit repository in the secondary Region. Create an AWS CodeBuild project to
• BCreate an Amazon S3 bucket in the secondary Region. Create an AWS Fargate task to perform a
• CCreate an AWS CodeArtifact repository in the secondary Region. Create an AWS CodePipeline
• DCreate an AWS Cloud9 environment and a CodeCommit repository in the secondary Region.

• A
  79% (11)
• B
  7% (1)
• C
  14% (2)

Explanation

Explanation

Option A is correct because creating a CodeCommit repository in the secondary Region directly mirrors the source control tool already in use, and AWS CodeBuild can be configured to periodically sync (mirror) the primary repository to the secondary one, ensuring code is available and developers can simply add a second Git remote URL pointing to the secondary Region's CodeCommit endpoint.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• Option B uses S3, which is object storage - not a Git-compatible source control system, so developers cannot add it as a Git remote URL.
• Option C uses CodeArtifact, which is a package/artifact repository (for npm, Maven, PyPI, etc.), not a source code version control system - it cannot serve as a Git remote.
• Option D uses Cloud9, which is an IDE/development environment, not a source control repository - it doesn't provide a Git remote URL for disaster recovery mirroring purposes.

Memory Tip

Think "like-for-like" DR: always replicate with the same service type in the secondary Region. Since the primary uses CodeCommit (Git), the DR solution must also use CodeCommit (Git). If the question mentions "add a Git remote URL," the answer must involve a Git-compatible repository - and only CodeCommit qualifies among the options.

No community discussion yet for this question.