SAP-C02 Practice Question: Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization
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?
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
✓
Use the Strangler Fig pattern to incrementally migrate data to DynamoDB
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.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Rehost the database to Amazon RDS
Why it's wrong here
Rehosting to Amazon RDS keeps MySQL, so the shared-schema coupling and relational model remain; DynamoDB's single-table, partition-key design is never reached. Rehosting suits lift-and-shift migrations where minimal change is the goal, not the refactor to a NoSQL key-value store this scenario requires.
- ✓
Use the Strangler Fig pattern to incrementally migrate data to DynamoDB
Why this is correct
The Strangler Fig pattern routes reads and writes incrementally to DynamoDB while the MySQL database remains authoritative, allowing dual-write or change-data-capture synchronisation. This satisfies the refactor-to-DynamoDB goal without a risky big-bang cutover, since each migrated capability can be validated before decommissioning legacy tables.
- ✗
Replatform the database to Amazon Aurora
Why it's wrong here
Aurora remains a relational MySQL-compatible engine, so the shared database and stored-procedure coupling persist rather than becoming DynamoDB's key-value access. Replatforming to Aurora is right when you want managed relational benefits with minimal schema change, not when the target is a non-relational store.
- ✗
Retire the existing database and switch to DynamoDB
Why it's wrong here
Retiring the database discards the data and schema the microservices still need; retirement applies to decommissioning unused systems, not migrating live data. The required strategy is refactor/re-architect, which moves the schema and data into DynamoDB tables while decomposing access per service.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 984 original SAP-C02 practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
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.