You support a user-facing web application. When analyzing the application's error budget over the previous six months, you notice that the application has never consumed more than 5% of its error…

Question

Options

• AAdd more serving capacity to all of your application's zones.
• BHave more frequent or potentially risky application releases.
• CTighten the SLO match the application's observed reliability.
• DImplement and measure additional Service Level Indicators (SLIs) fro the application.
• EAnnounce planned downtime to consume more error budget, and ensure that users are not

• A
  16% (8)
• B
  33% (17)
• C
  8% (4)
• D
  43% (22)

Explanation

The scenario states the SLO is confirmed appropriate by stakeholders, yet the application only ever consumes 5% of its error budget. The goal is to make the SLO reflect observed reliability while balancing velocity and business needs - not to lower standards. Option D (implement additional SLIs) gives a more complete, accurate picture of the application's true reliability across more dimensions, making the SLO better reflect actual user experience. Option E (announce planned downtime) allows the team to use the surplus error budget for legitimate maintenance activities while ensuring users are informed - a healthy use of available budget headroom. Option A (add capacity) addresses a non-problem. Option B (risky releases) may be appropriate in other SRE scenarios but is not directly about making the SLO reflect observed reliability. Option C (tighten SLO) contradicts the stakeholder confirmation that the SLO is already appropriately set.

No community discussion yet for this question.