Your company has developed a monolithic, 3-tier application to allow external users to upload and share files. The solution cannot be easily enhanced and lacks reliability. The development team…

Question

Options

• AThe new approach will be significantly less costly, make it easier to manage the underlying
• BThe monolithic solution can be converted to a container with Docker. The generated container
• CThe new approach will make it easier to decouple infrastructure from application, develop and
• DThe process can be automated with Migrate for Compute Engine.

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  12% (4)
• C
  79% (27)
• D
  6% (2)

Explanation

Option C is correct because the primary business case for microservices and fully managed services centers on decoupling, independent deployability, and developer agility - each service can be developed, scaled, and updated without affecting others, directly addressing the stated problems of poor reliability and difficulty enhancing the app.

Option A is a weak argument because microservices architectures are often more expensive upfront due to added complexity, distributed system overhead, and operational tooling - overpromising cost savings to leadership is a credibility risk.

Option B is a red herring: containerizing a monolith with Docker just wraps the existing problem in a new box; it doesn't provide microservices benefits like independent scaling or fault isolation, and it doesn't address the "fully managed service" goal.

Option D (Migrate for Compute Engine) is a VM lift-and-shift tool - it moves workloads to the cloud as-is and has nothing to do with re-architecting to microservices.

Memory tip: Think "C = Capabilities leadership cares about" - decouple, develop independently, deploy faster, scale per service. The other options either overpromise (A), miss the point (B), or use the wrong tool entirely (D).

No community discussion yet for this question.