SOA-C02 · Question #600
A company is implementing a custom monitoring service that is based on machine learning. The monitoring service consumes Amazon EventBridge events that Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling generates. The company…
The correct answer is A. Create an EventBridge archive for the event pattern to replay the events. Increase the logging in. Option A is correct because EventBridge's native archive and replay feature lets you capture the failing events and re-test them without regenerating real traffic, while enabling CloudWatch Logs on the event bus surfaces the HTTP response details (status codes, error bodies)…
Question
A company is implementing a custom monitoring service that is based on machine learning. The monitoring service consumes Amazon EventBridge events that Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling generates. The company has configured an EventBridge rule to react to the events. The monitoring service detects anomalous behavior such as unanticipated scaling events and is configured as an EventBridge API destination. During testing, the company discovers that the monitoring service is not receiving events. However, Amazon CloudWatch shows that the EventBridge rule is being invoked. A SysOps administrator must implement a solution to retrieve client error details to help resolve this issue. Which solution will meet this requirement with the MOST operational efficiency?
Options
- ACreate an EventBridge archive for the event pattern to replay the events. Increase the logging in
- BCreate an Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) standard queue as a dead-letter
- CCreate a second EventBridge rule for the same event pattern. Create an AWS Lambda function
- DConfigure the EventBridge rule to detect all unanticipated scaling events and to send the
How the community answered
(48 responses)- A54% (26)
- B8% (4)
- C21% (10)
- D17% (8)
Explanation
Option A is correct because EventBridge's native archive and replay feature lets you capture the failing events and re-test them without regenerating real traffic, while enabling CloudWatch Logs on the event bus surfaces the HTTP response details (status codes, error bodies) returned by the API destination - all using built-in EventBridge capabilities with no new infrastructure to manage. Since CloudWatch already shows the rule is being invoked, the gap is clearly between EventBridge and the API destination, and detailed delivery logging directly exposes those client-side (4xx) errors.
Why the distractors are wrong:
- B (SQS DLQ): A dead-letter queue captures the event payload of failed deliveries but does not expose the HTTP error response details from the API destination - it tells you what failed, not why the destination rejected it.
- C (second rule + Lambda): Duplicating the rule and adding a Lambda just to log events introduces unnecessary complexity when EventBridge's built-in logging already provides richer delivery diagnostics.
- D: Changing the rule's event pattern doesn't help retrieve error details from an endpoint that is already receiving invocations but failing to deliver.
Memory tip: Think "EventBridge API destination problem = check delivery logs first." The rule firing ≠ the destination receiving - the gap lives in the delivery layer, and CloudWatch Logs on the event bus is the native, zero-infrastructure way to see exactly what the destination returned.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.