SAP-C02 Practice Question: Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization
A company is modernizing a legacy application by breaking it into microservices. The application has a complex set of dependencies and requires gradual migration. Which design pattern should the company use?
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
(Strangler Fig pattern) because it allows incremental replacement of legacy system functionality with microservices, enabling gradual migration despite complex dependencies. Option A (Blue/Green deployment) is a deployment strategy, not a migration pattern. Option B (Saga pattern) is for managing distributed transactions, not incremental replacement. Option D (Circuit Breaker) is a fault-tolerance pattern.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Blue/Green deployment pattern
Why it's wrong here
Blue/Green swaps two complete environments to release a new version atomically; it does not support routing a subset of live traffic or incrementally carving out services. It is tempting because it reduces deployment risk, and would be correct for releasing a finished application version with instant rollback rather than gradual migration.
- ✗
Saga pattern
Why it's wrong here
Saga coordinates distributed transactions across services via compensating actions, so it addresses data consistency, not the incremental extraction of functionality from a monolith. It is tempting because it suits microservice architectures, and would be correct when a business transaction spans several services and needs rollback on partial failure.
- ✓
Strangler Fig pattern
Why this is correct
The Strangler Fig pattern incrementally replaces legacy functionality by routing specific requests to new microservices while the monolith continues serving the remainder. This directly satisfies the stem's gradual migration requirement, letting the company peel off dependencies piecemeal rather than rewriting everything at once, and it accommodates the complex dependency web without a risky big-bang cutover.
- ✗
Circuit Breaker pattern
Why it's wrong here
Circuit Breaker halts calls to a failing dependency to prevent cascading failures; it does not decompose a monolith or route traffic between old and new components. It is tempting because it stabilises unreliable downstream services, and would be correct once microservices exist and one dependency starts timing out repeatedly.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This SAP-C02 question is part of Courseiva's 984-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
Same concept, more angles
1 more way this is tested on SAP-C02
These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.
Variation 1. A company is modernizing a legacy application by breaking it into microservices. The application uses a shared MySQL database. The team wants to refactor the database to use Amazon DynamoDB for better scalability. Which migration strategy should be used?
hard- A.Rehost the database to Amazon RDS
- ✓ B.Use the Strangler Fig pattern to incrementally migrate data to DynamoDB
- C.Replatform the database to Amazon Aurora
- D.Retire the existing database and switch to DynamoDB
Why B: The Strangler Fig pattern is the correct migration strategy because it allows for incremental and iterative migration of data and business logic from the legacy MySQL database to Amazon DynamoDB without a full cutover. This approach minimizes risk and enables the team to gradually refactor the application while maintaining continuous operation. Option A (rehost to Amazon RDS) would still use a relational database and not achieve the goal of moving to DynamoDB. Option C (replatform to Amazon Aurora) also retains a relational model. Option D (retire the existing database and switch to DynamoDB) is risky as it requires a complete cutover without incremental transition.
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
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.