A company plans to refactor a monolithic application into a modern application design deployed on AWS. The CI/CD pipeline needs to be upgraded to support the modern design for the application with the following requirements:
• It should allow changes to be released several times every hour.
• It should be able to roll back the changes as quickly as possible.
Which design will meet these requirements?
Specifying AWS Elastic Beanstalk to stage in a secondary environment as the deployment target for the CI/CD pipeline of the application and swapping the staging and production environment URLs will allow changes to be released several times every hour and enable quick rollbacks. Elastic Beanstalk natively supports environment swapping, which minimizes downtime and provides a simple and efficient way to manage deployment and rollback processes.
The correct answer is B. Specifying AWS Elastic Beanstalk to stage in a secondary environment as the deployment target for the CI/CD pipeline of the application and swapping the staging and production environment URLs. This approach allows the company to deploy updates several times an hour and quickly roll back changes as needed. Option A, Deploying a CI/CD pipeline that incorporates AMIs to contain the application and their configurations. Deploy the application by replacing Amazon EC2 instances, while it may provide a way to roll back changes by replacing instances with previous versions, it may not allow for rapid deployment of updates multiple times per hour.
Option C, Using AWS Systems Manager to re-provision the infrastructure for each deployment. Updating the Amazon EC2 user data to pull the latest code artifact from Amazon S3 and using Amazon Route 53 weighted routing to point to the new environment, would require more time-consuming steps and may not be able to roll back changes as quickly. Option D, Rolling out the application updates as part of an Auto Scaling event using prebuilt AMIs. Using new versions of the AMIs to add instances and phasing out all instances that use the previous AMI version with the configured termination policy during a deployment event, while it may be a way to roll back changes, it doesn't allow for rapid deployment of updates multiple times per hour.
Good explanation, but concerning option C it is not quite right, you say that 'may not be able to roll back changes as quickly.', but since it is using Route 53 weighted configuration, in case of failure of the new instances, you just need to change again the weighted configuration to point 100% to the old instances while you replace again the new instances by old instances.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/using-features.CNAMESwap.html
B. Specify AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Imagine the cost for replacing AMIs and EC2 or re-provision infrastructure several times per day. Although cost effectiveness is not part the requirement in the question. the only option that seems correct is B.
probably B
A = replacing existing EC2 instances does not allow for roll back the changes as quickly as possible B = correct (tough Beanstalk is not the best service for releasing several times every hour) C = could work, but here you are combining SSM and user data to achieve what beanstalk does natively D = this would not work as you need to build AMIs (AMI Builder not mentioned) and also rapid rollback is better achieved avoiding termination of old AMI version
B, for sure. Using AWS Elastic Beanstalk environment Swap. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/blue-green-deployments/swap-the-environment-of-an-elastic-beanstalk-application.html