SAP-C02 Practice Question: Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization
A retail company is migrating its e-commerce platform from a monolith running on a single on-premises server to AWS. The current application consists of a Java-based web server, a MySQL database, and a caching layer using Redis. The company wants to modernize the architecture by adopting microservices, using serverless where possible, and minimizing operational overhead. The migration must be completed within six months with minimal disruption to ongoing operations. The solutions architect proposes the following initial steps: containerize the Java application and run it on Amazon ECS with Fargate, migrate the MySQL database to Amazon Aurora Serverless v2, and replace Redis with Amazon ElastiCache for Redis Serverless. However, the team is concerned about the complexity of the migration and the potential for downtime. Which recommendation should the solutions architect make to address these concerns?
⚠ Common exam trap
A common mix-up: candidates confuse Blue/Green deployments (which reduce downtime for a single application version) with the Strangler Fig pattern (which is specifically designed for incremental migration from a monolith to microservices), leading them to choose Option B as a safe but incomplete solution.
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 replace monolith functionality with microservices, routing traffic to new services as they are built.
The Strangler Fig pattern allows the team to incrementally replace specific functionalities of the monolithic e-commerce platform with microservices, routing traffic to the new services as they are built. This minimizes disruption and downtime by avoiding a big-bang cutover, and it aligns with the goal of modernizing to microservices and serverless within the six-month timeline. The pattern leverages an existing ingress controller (e.g., an Application Load Balancer with path-based routing) to gradually shift requests from the monolith to new services running on Amazon ECS with Fargate, while the database and caching layers are migrated separately with minimal impact.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Rewrite the entire application as microservices from scratch and deploy them in a new AWS environment. Cut over all traffic at once after testing.
Why it's wrong here
A full from-scratch rewrite with a single all-traffic cutover maximises risk and cannot realistically finish within six months, contradicting the minimal-disruption requirement. It is tempting because greenfield microservices avoid legacy constraints, and rewriting would be correct for a small application with no continuity pressure.
- ✗
Use AWS Blue/Green deployment for the monolith to reduce downtime, then migrate to microservices after the deployment is stable.
Why it's wrong here
Blue/green deployment of the monolith reduces cutover downtime but keeps the monolith intact, deferring the microservices, serverless, and operational-overhead goals beyond the six-month window. It is tempting because blue/green is genuinely the right pattern when the goal is safe like-for-like migration without re-architecting.
- ✓
Use the Strangler Fig pattern to incrementally replace monolith functionality with microservices, routing traffic to new services as they are built.
Why this is correct
The Strangler Fig pattern incrementally replaces monolith functionality with microservices, routing traffic gradually to new services. This limits migration risk and avoids downtime, satisfying the six-month deadline with minimal disruption while enabling the serverless modernisation the company wants.
- ✗
Perform a lift-and-shift migration of the monolith to EC2 instances, then gradually refactor into microservices over the next year.
Why it's wrong here
Lift-and-shift to EC2 preserves the monolith and defers modernisation, so it cannot deliver microservices or serverless within the six-month window; it merely relocates the operational burden. It is tempting because rehosting minimises migration risk and downtime, and would suit a scenario where speed of exit from a data centre outweighs architectural change.
Quick reference
Cloud Service Model Comparison
| Model | You Manage | Provider Manages | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| IaaS | OS, runtime, apps, data | Hardware, hypervisor, networking | EC2, Azure VMs, GCP Compute Engine |
| PaaS | Apps and data | OS, runtime, middleware, hardware | Elastic Beanstalk, Azure App Service |
| SaaS | Data and settings only | Everything else | Microsoft 365, Salesforce, Workday |
| FaaS / Serverless | Function code only | Infra, scaling, runtime | Lambda, Azure Functions, Cloud Run |
| CaaS | Containers and apps | Kubernetes, OS, hardware | EKS, AKS, GKE |
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 →
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.