Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Google Exam Professional-Cloud-DevOps-Engineer Topic 6 Question 61 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Cloud DevOps Engineer exam
Question #: 61
Topic #: 6
[All Professional Cloud DevOps Engineer Questions]

You are investigating issues in your production application that runs on Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE). You determined that the source Of the issue is a recently updated container image, although the exact change in code was not identified. The deployment is currently pointing to the latest tag. You need to update your cluster to run a version of the container that functions as intended. What should you do?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

Contribute your Thoughts:

Germaine
5 months ago
That could work too, as long as we ensure we are pointing to the correct version of the container.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaime
5 months ago
But what about altering the deployment to point to the sha256 hash of the previous working container?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenneth
5 months ago
Building a new container from a previous Git tag could also be a good option for updating the deployment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Germaine
5 months ago
I disagree. I believe we should apply the latest tag to the previous container image for the rolling update.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaime
5 months ago
I think we should create a new tag called stable and point the deployment to it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lezlie
6 months ago
I don't know, I'm kind of leaning towards option D. Pointing to the SHA256 digest seems like it might be a bit more robust, you know? It's not dependent on tags or anything like that. But I can see the appeal of C as well. Tough call.
upvoted 0 times
...
Emerson
6 months ago
Haha, can you imagine if we tried option B? 'Apply the latest tag to the previous container image'? That's like trying to put a fresh coat of paint on a broken-down car and expecting it to run better. No, I think C is the way to go. Keep it simple, you know?
upvoted 0 times
Della
5 months ago
Good call. Option C seems like the most reliable solution to get our application back on track.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reiko
5 months ago
Absolutely, simplicity is key when dealing with these kind of issues. Let's stick with option C for now.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynna
5 months ago
Yeah, option B does sound pretty risky. I agree with you on going with option C for a safer approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Von
6 months ago
D) Alter the deployment to point to the sha2 56 digest of the previously working container.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rex
6 months ago
C) Build a new container from a previous Git tag, and do a rolling update on the deployment to the new container.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elden
6 months ago
B) Apply the latest tag to the previous container image, and do a rolling update on the deployment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willard
6 months ago
A) Create a new tag called stable that points to the previously working container, and change the deployment to point to the new tag.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Weldon
6 months ago
Yeah, I agree with you there. Option C seems like the most straightforward approach. We know the previous version was working, so let's just build a new container from that and swap it in. I'm not a big fan of the other options - they seem like they might introduce more complexity than necessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maile
6 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm not sure if I fully understand the context here. But from what I can gather, it seems like we need to revert to a previous, working version of the container image. I think option C might be the way to go - building a new container from a previous Git tag and doing a rolling update on the deployment.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77