SAP-C02 Strangler Fig Pattern Practice Question
A company is migrating a monolithic e-commerce application to a microservices architecture on AWS. The migration must minimize downtime and allow rollback. Which migration strategy should the company use?
⚠ Common exam trap
SAP-C02 often tests whether candidates conflate the general act of refactoring with a specific incremental migration pattern, so pick the option that explicitly describes gradual replacement with rollback capability.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Strangler fig pattern
The strangler fig pattern incrementally replaces pieces of a monolith with microservices by routing traffic through a facade, allowing new services to be introduced alongside the legacy system. This minimizes downtime because the monolith keeps serving unaffected functionality while migrated components go live, and it enables rollback by simply routing traffic back to the old path. It is the standard AWS-recommended approach for low-risk monolith decomposition.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Refactor
Why it's wrong here
Refactoring rewrites the monolith into microservices, a lengthy effort that cannot be rolled back quickly if problems appear. It is tempting because the target state is microservices, yet refactoring suits long-term modernisation where downtime and rapid rollback are not constraints; the stem demands incremental, reversible migration.
- ✗
Big bang migration
Why it's wrong here
Big bang migration cuts over everything at once, so a failure leaves no tested path back to the monolith and downtime is prolonged. It is tempting for its speed and simplicity on small, low-risk systems, but the stem requires minimised downtime and rollback capability, which a staged strategy provides.
- ✓
Strangler fig pattern
Why this is correct
The strangler fig pattern incrementally routes specific functions from the monolith to new microservices behind a facade, so each slice can be released and rolled back independently. This satisfies both the minimal-downtime and rollback constraints, unlike a single big-bang cutover.
- ✗
Rehost (lift and shift)
Why it's wrong here
Rehosting moves the monolith unchanged onto EC2, so it neither decomposes the application into microservices nor provides the incremental cutover and rollback the migration demands. It is tempting because lift-and-shift is the fastest route off-premises, and it would be correct if the goal were simply retiring hardware with minimal modification.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every SAP-C02 question from scratch — 984 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Amazon Web Services exam blueprint
This SAP-C02 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Amazon Web Services certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the SAP-C02 exam.