DVA-C02 Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

A canary deployment best matches the requirement to test a new feature with a small group of users while the current version remains deployed for everyone else. In a canary approach, a new application revision is released to a limited portion of traffic/users first. This allows the team to collect real user feedback and validate behavior under production-like conditions without exposing the full user base to risk.

AWS deployment guidance for progressive delivery aligns with this concept: you start by directing a small percentage of requests to the new version, monitor results (such as error rates, latency, and business outcomes), and keep the stable version handling the majority of traffic during the evaluation period. This directly satisfies the requirement that the “current software version remains deployed” while testing occurs.

Once the feature is validated, the canary strategy supports promoting the new revision to the remaining population by shifting traffic from the old version to the new version—commonly ending with a transition to 100% of users on the new version. This satisfies the requirement to deploy to “all other users at the same time” after the small-group validation step is complete.

Why the other options are less suitable:

All-at-once exposes all users immediately, so there is no limited-user validation phase.

In-place replaces the existing version on the same infrastructure, typically without maintaining a parallel stable path for a subset of users.

Linear gradually shifts traffic in fixed increments over time, rather than validating with a small group and then moving the remainder in one step.

The Immutable deployment method is the best choice when a company requires minimal downtime and automatic rollback in case of a failure. Here's why:

In Immutable deployments, a new set of instances is launched with the updated version. These instances are tested and validated before they replace the old instances. This ensures zero downtime and immediate rollback if the deployment fails.

All at once (A) causes downtime because the update replaces all instances simultaneously.

Rolling deployments (B) update a few instances at a time, but if a failure occurs midway, downtime or partial unavailability can happen.

Snapshots (C) are not a deployment strategy in Elastic Beanstalk.

To monitor end-to-end requests and debug issues across microservices, you need distributed tracing. Among AWS tools, AWS X-Ray is specifically built for this use case.

Step-by-Step Breakdown:

Step 1: Understand the Requirement

The developer needs:

End-to-end request tracing across microservices

Debugging capability for performance issues or failures

This points directly to a distributed tracing solution rather than just logs or metrics.

Step 2: Evaluate the Options

Option A: Amazon CloudWatch

CloudWatch is powerful for metrics, logs, and alerts.

But it does not provide distributed tracing or request path visualization between microservices.

So, it's not sufficient alone for the requirement.

Option B: AWS CloudTrail

CloudTrail tracks API calls made through the AWS Management Console, CLI, SDKs.

It is meant for auditing and governance, not microservices request tracing.

Not suitable for debugging microservices interactions.

Option C: AWS X-Ray SDK with X-Ray service map

Purpose-built for distributed tracing

Automatically collects data about requests as they travel through your microservices

You can instrument your code with the AWS X-Ray SDK in Java, Node.js, Python, Go, .NET, etc.

Visualizes requests using a service map, showing latency, errors, and time spent in downstream services.

How it works:

Instrument each microservice using the AWS X-Ray SDK.

Use the SDK to trace requests, propagate trace headers across services.

The X-Ray daemon collects and sends trace data to the X-Ray service.

You can view the service map, see bottlenecks, error rates, etc.

Option D: AWS Health

AWS Health provides information on AWS service outages or account-level events.

It does not monitor your application or microservices health or request flows.

Correct Choice: C is the only option that meets the developer's requirement to monitor end-to-end request paths and debug issues in a microservices architecture.

AWS Developer References:

AWS X-Ray Documentation: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/xray/latest/devguide/aws-xray.html

Instrumenting your application: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/xray/latest/devguide/xray-sdk.html

Viewing the Service Map: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/xray/latest/devguide/xray-console-service-map.html

Tracing Microservices with AWS X-Ray: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/tracing-microservices-aws-x-ray/

Amazon SQS standard queues provide at-least-once delivery, which means messages can be delivered more than once. When Lambda is triggered by an SQS standard queue, duplicate delivery can occur due to retries, visibility timeouts, or transient errors. Therefore, “processed multiple times” is expected behavior unless the system implements deduplication or idempotency.

The most cost-effective way within the provided options to reduce duplicate processing is to use an SQS FIFO queue with deduplication. FIFO queues support exactly-once processing semantics within the constraints of the service (by preventing duplicate message delivery within the deduplication interval when a MessageDeduplicationId is used or content-based deduplication is enabled). This directly mitigates duplicate processing without requiring large architectural changes.

Option B (DLQ) is important for handling poison messages, but it does not prevent duplicates in normal processing; it only captures messages that fail repeatedly.

Option C (concurrency = 1) reduces parallelism but does not eliminate duplicates; the same message can still be delivered again if the visibility timeout expires or retries occur.

Option D is a major redesign and not cost-effective for simply addressing duplicate SQS message processing.

???? Note: In real production systems, the best practice is to make processing idempotent (so duplicates do no harm). But among the choices, FIFO + deduplication is the most direct and cost-effective fix.

Therefore, switch to an SQS FIFO queue and use deduplication.