Cloud Digital Leader Scaling with Google Cloud operations Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  The company should have used a cheaper database service instead of Cloud SQL

  Why it's wrong here

  Choosing a cheaper database service, such as a lower-tier Cloud SQL SKU or a different managed database, does not address the root cause because the problem is that instances were left running after the project ended. Any database service that is no longer needed but remains provisioned will accrue compute, storage, and backup costs, regardless of its unit price. Cost waste is driven by the absence of a lifecycle process for shutting down or deleting unused resources, not by the service selection itself.

• ✓

  The absence of a resource decommissioning process: when projects end, there is no formal step to identify and delete associated cloud resources, allowing idle infrastructure to persist and accrue costs indefinitely

  Why this is correct

  This is the root cause. FinOps best practice requires a defined lifecycle process: when a project is closed or a service is decommissioned, associated cloud resources are explicitly identified and deleted. Without this step, idle resources accumulate. The fix is process: add resource cleanup to the project closure checklist and automate detection of idle resources.

• ✗

  Cloud SQL pricing is too high compared to on-premises databases, making any unused capacity expensive

  Why it's wrong here

  Cloud SQL pricing relative to on-premises databases is not the root cause, because idle resources waste money at any price point—even if an alternative were free, leaving it running would still consume quota and operational overhead. Comparing cloud pricing to on-premises is also misleading, as cloud offers elasticity and pay-for-use, so the correct cost control is to decommission what is no longer used. The high cost is a symptom of resources persisting without business justification, not a pricing model flaw.

• ✗

  The database administrators forgot to enable automatic deletion for idle Cloud SQL instances

  Why it's wrong here

  Cloud SQL does not offer an automatic deletion feature for idle instances, so there is nothing for the administrators to 'forget' to enable in the console. The true issue is that the project closure process lacked a formal step to identify and delete all associated cloud resources, leaving orphaned instances beyond any automated guardrail. A human process gap—not a missing product setting—is the reason the idle infrastructure remained and accumulated costs.

Go deeper

Related to this question