Visit here for our full Cisco 350-901 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 161:
A developer needs to implement a REST API that handles user authentication and authorization. Which approach provides secure token-based authentication?
A) Store passwords in plain text and send them with each request
B) Implement OAuth 2.0 or JWT (JSON Web Tokens) for secure token-based authentication with proper token expiration and refresh mechanisms
C) Use HTTP Basic Authentication without encryption
D) Store authentication credentials in URL parameters
Answer: B
Explanation:
Implementing OAuth 2.0 or JWT for token-based authentication provides secure, scalable authentication mechanisms, making option B the correct answer. Modern API security requires robust authentication that protects credentials while enabling stateless, distributed system architectures. OAuth 2.0 provides standardized authorization framework supporting multiple grant types including authorization code flow for web applications, client credentials for service-to-service communication, and refresh token mechanism for obtaining new access tokens without re-authentication. This flexibility accommodates diverse application architectures. JWT tokens are self-contained credentials encoding user identity and claims in cryptographically signed JSON objects. The signature ensures token integrity preventing tampering, while the payload contains user information enabling stateless authentication where servers validate tokens without database lookups. Token expiration implements security best practice where access tokens have short lifetimes (minutes to hours) limiting exposure if tokens are compromised. Expired tokens require refresh, forcing periodic re-validation of user sessions. Refresh tokens with longer lifetimes enable obtaining new access tokens without user re-authentication, balancing security with user experience. Refresh tokens are typically stored securely and can be revoked if accounts are compromised. Token storage security requires keeping tokens in secure storage like HTTP-only cookies or secure mobile storage rather than localStorage vulnerable to XSS attacks. Proper storage prevents token theft through common attack vectors. Claims-based authorization embeds user roles and permissions in JWT claims, enabling fine-grained access control where API endpoints validate required permissions from token claims without database queries. Cryptographic signing using HMAC or RSA algorithms ensures token authenticity. Servers verify signatures using shared secrets or public keys, detecting any token modification attempts. Token revocation mechanisms through blacklists or short expiration times handle scenarios requiring immediate access termination like user logout or security incidents. Option A is incorrect because plain text passwords create severe security vulnerabilities exposing credentials to interception, logging, and unauthorized access. Option C is incorrect because HTTP Basic Authentication without encryption (HTTPS) transmits credentials in easily decoded base64 encoding, enabling trivial credential theft. Option D is incorrect because URL parameters appear in logs, browser history, and referrer headers, exposing credentials and violating fundamental security principles.
Question 162:
A developer is building a microservices application using Docker containers. What orchestration platform should be used for container deployment, scaling, and management?
A) Manually manage containers on individual servers
B) Use Kubernetes for container orchestration with automated deployment, scaling, service discovery, and self-healing capabilities
C) Deploy containers without orchestration
D) Use shell scripts for container management
Answer: B
Explanation:
Kubernetes for container orchestration provides enterprise-grade container management capabilities, making option B the correct answer. Microservices architectures with multiple containerized services require sophisticated orchestration to manage complexity at scale. Kubernetes declarative configuration defines desired system state including deployments specifying container images and replica counts, services providing stable networking endpoints, and resource limits ensuring fair resource allocation. Kubernetes continuously reconciles actual state with desired state automatically. Automated scaling capabilities include horizontal pod autoscaling adjusting replica counts based on CPU, memory, or custom metrics, and vertical pod autoscaling modifying container resource requests. This dynamic scaling optimizes resource utilization while maintaining performance. Service discovery and load balancing through Kubernetes Services provide stable IP addresses and DNS names for pod groups that change dynamically. Services automatically load balance traffic across healthy pod replicas, abstracting away individual pod lifecycles. Self-healing mechanisms automatically restart failed containers, reschedule pods from failed nodes, and replace unresponsive containers. Health checks define liveness and readiness probes determining when containers require restart or shouldn’t receive traffic. Rolling updates enable zero-downtime deployments where new versions gradually replace old versions. Kubernetes monitors health during rollout, automatically pausing or rolling back if issues are detected. Resource management through namespaces provides logical isolation for different environments or teams. Resource quotas prevent any single namespace from consuming excessive cluster resources. ConfigMaps and Secrets manage configuration and sensitive data separately from container images. This separation enables deploying the same images across environments with environment-specific configurations. Persistent storage through Persistent Volumes and Claims abstracts underlying storage systems, enabling stateful applications to persist data beyond container lifecycles. Storage classes define different storage types with varying performance characteristics. Option A is incorrect because manual container management across multiple servers is operationally complex, error-prone, and doesn’t scale beyond small deployments. Option C is incorrect because unorchestrated containers lack automated scaling, self-healing, and service discovery, requiring extensive manual intervention for production operations. Option D is incorrect because shell script management doesn’t provide the sophisticated features like health checking, rolling updates, and declarative configuration that Kubernetes offers.
Question 163:
A developer needs to implement asynchronous message processing between microservices. Which messaging pattern provides reliable decoupled communication?
A) Use synchronous HTTP calls for all inter-service communication
B) Implement message queue using RabbitMQ or Apache Kafka for asynchronous, reliable message delivery with guaranteed processing
C) Use shared database for inter-service communication
D) Hard-code direct service-to-service connections
Answer: B
Explanation:
Message queue using RabbitMQ or Kafka provides asynchronous, reliable inter-service communication, making option B the correct answer. Microservices architectures benefit from asynchronous messaging that decouples services, improves resilience, and enables independent scaling. Message queues provide durable message storage where messages persist even if consuming services are temporarily unavailable. This persistence prevents message loss during service failures or deployment, ensuring reliable eventual delivery. Asynchronous processing allows producer services to publish messages and continue without waiting for consumer processing. This non-blocking pattern improves producer performance and responsiveness while consumers process at their own pace. Decoupling through message queues eliminates direct dependencies between services. Producers don’t need knowledge of consumers, and new consumers can be added without producer changes. This loose coupling improves system flexibility and reduces change impact. Guaranteed delivery mechanisms ensure messages are processed at least once through acknowledgment protocols. Consumers acknowledge successful processing, and unacknowledged messages are redelivered ensuring no message loss. Dead letter queues capture messages that repeatedly fail processing, preventing failed messages from blocking queue processing while preserving them for investigation and potential reprocessing. Load leveling smooths traffic spikes by buffering messages in queues. When sudden load bursts occur, messages queue up and consumers process them steadily, preventing service overload. Competing consumers pattern enables multiple consumer instances to process messages from the same queue concurrently. This pattern provides horizontal scalability where adding consumers increases processing capacity. Message ordering guarantees in Kafka through partitions ensure messages within partitions are processed in order. This ordering supports use cases requiring sequence preservation like event sourcing or transaction processing. Publish-subscribe patterns enable one message to be delivered to multiple consumers, supporting scenarios like event notification where multiple services need to react to the same event. Option A is incorrect because synchronous HTTP creates tight coupling, reduces fault tolerance since failures cascade through call chains, and doesn’t provide the buffering and resilience benefits of asynchronous messaging. Option C is incorrect because shared databases create tight coupling through shared schema, don’t provide message delivery guarantees, and create performance bottlenecks as all services access the same database. Option D is incorrect because hard-coded connections create brittle systems difficult to modify, lack the reliability and queuing benefits of message brokers, and don’t support patterns like publish-subscribe.
Question 164:
A developer needs to implement continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline for application deployment. What components should be included?
A) Manual deployment with no automation
B) Implement CI/CD pipeline with automated testing, build automation, artifact repository, and deployment automation using tools like Jenkins, GitLab CI, or GitHub Actions
C) Copy files manually to production servers
D) Deploy without testing or validation
Answer: B
Explanation:
CI/CD pipeline with automated testing, build automation, and deployment automation enables reliable software delivery, making option B the correct answer. Modern software development requires automation to maintain quality while accelerating delivery velocity. Source control integration triggers pipelines automatically on code commits or pull requests. This event-driven approach ensures all changes flow through standardized validation before reaching production. Automated testing executes multiple test levels including unit tests validating individual components, integration tests verifying component interactions, and end-to-end tests confirming complete system functionality. Comprehensive testing catches defects early when they’re cheapest to fix. Build automation compiles code, resolves dependencies, and packages applications into deployable artifacts. Consistent automated builds eliminate environment-specific build issues and ensure reproducibility. Artifact repository stores build outputs in versioned repositories like Nexus, Artifactory, or container registries. Centralized artifact storage provides single source of truth for deployable versions. Static code analysis runs tools checking code quality, security vulnerabilities, and style consistency. Automated analysis enforces standards without manual code review bottlenecks. Deployment automation stages artifacts through environments using infrastructure-as-code. Automated deployment eliminates manual errors and inconsistencies while enabling rapid rollback if issues arise. Environment promotion progresses artifacts through development, testing, staging, and production environments with automated validation at each stage. This staged approach reduces production deployment risk. Rollback capabilities enable quick reversion to previous versions if production issues are detected. Automated rollback minimizes incident impact and recovery time. Monitoring integration collects deployment metrics and application health indicators, providing feedback loop for continuous improvement of deployment processes. Pipeline security implements secrets management for credentials, signs artifacts for integrity verification, and controls access to production deployments through approval gates. Option A is incorrect because manual deployment is slow, error-prone, and doesn’t scale as development velocity increases, creating bottlenecks and quality risks. Option C is incorrect because manual file copying lacks validation, version control, and rollback capabilities while introducing human error possibilities. Option D is incorrect because deploying without testing creates quality risks, increases production defects, and eliminates the safety net that automated testing provides.
Question 165:
A developer needs to implement API rate limiting to prevent abuse and ensure fair resource allocation. What approach should be used?
A) Allow unlimited API requests without throttling
B) Implement rate limiting using token bucket or leaky bucket algorithm with configurable limits per API key or IP address
C) Block all API access indiscriminately
D) Hope users voluntarily limit their requests
Answer: B
Explanation:
Rate limiting using token bucket or leaky bucket algorithms provides fair, configurable request throttling, making option B the correct answer. API rate limiting protects backend systems from overload while ensuring equitable access across API consumers. Token bucket algorithm defines bucket capacity (burst size) and refill rate (sustained rate). Requests consume tokens, and when the bucket empties, requests are rejected until tokens replenish. This algorithm allows burst traffic up to bucket capacity while enforcing average rate over time. Leaky bucket algorithm processes requests at constant rate regardless of arrival rate. Excess requests queue up to queue limit, after which additional requests are rejected. This smooths traffic spikes and enforces strict rate limits. Per-client rate limiting identifies clients by API key, OAuth token, or IP address, applying individual limits. This granular control prevents one misbehaving client from affecting others. Tiered rate limits provide different quotas for different client categories. Free tier users might have 1000 requests/hour while premium users get 100,000 requests/hour, enabling monetization through rate limit tiers. Distributed rate limiting in multi-server deployments uses centralized stores like Redis to share rate limit counters across API gateway instances. This prevents clients from bypassing limits by distributing requests across servers. Response headers communicate rate limit status to clients including remaining quota, quota reset time, and retry-after duration when limits are exceeded. These headers enable clients to implement respectful backoff strategies. Rate limit exemptions for certain endpoints or clients support use cases like health checks or privileged administrative operations that shouldn’t count against quotas. Dynamic rate adjustment modifies limits based on system load, reducing limits during high load periods to protect backend systems while allowing higher limits when capacity is available. Graceful degradation returns 429 Too Many Requests status with retry guidance rather than failing silently or returning generic errors. Clear error responses enable clients to implement proper retry logic. Option A is incorrect because unlimited requests enable abuse, denial-of-service attacks, and resource exhaustion affecting all API users. Option C is incorrect because indiscriminate blocking prevents legitimate API usage and defeats the purpose of providing API access. Option D is incorrect because relying on voluntary compliance is unrealistic and doesn’t protect against accidental abuse, bugs causing request loops, or malicious actors.
Question 166:
A developer needs to implement database transactions ensuring ACID properties for financial applications. What approach ensures data consistency?
A) Execute database operations without transaction management
B) Use database transactions with proper BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK statements and appropriate isolation levels to ensure atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability
C) Allow partial updates without rollback capability
D) Ignore data consistency requirements
Answer: B
Explanation:
Database transactions with proper BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK and isolation levels ensure ACID properties for financial data, making option B the correct answer. Financial applications require strict data consistency guarantees that transactions provide. Atomicity ensures all operations within a transaction complete successfully or all are rolled back. For financial transfers, this guarantees money is either fully transferred (debit source and credit destination) or the transaction fails completely, preventing partial transfers that would lose or create money. Consistency maintains database integrity constraints and business rules. Transactions validate constraints before committing, ensuring account balances never go below minimum thresholds or violate other business rules. Isolation prevents concurrent transactions from interfering with each other. Appropriate isolation levels like READ COMMITTED or SERIALIZABLE prevent dirty reads where transactions see uncommitted changes from other transactions. Durability guarantees committed transactions persist even if system failures occur immediately after commit. Database write-ahead logging ensures committed data can be recovered after crashes. Transaction boundaries define logical units of work. BEGIN starts transactions, COMMIT permanently applies changes, and ROLLBACK discards changes if errors occur or business logic determines the transaction should abort. Savepoints within transactions enable partial rollback to intermediate points rather than rolling back entire transactions. This granularity supports complex multi-step operations where some steps might need retry without restarting everything. Isolation level selection balances consistency with concurrency. SERIALIZABLE provides strongest consistency but lowest concurrency, while READ COMMITTED balances consistency and performance for many use cases. Deadlock handling implements detection and retry strategies when multiple transactions create circular wait conditions. Automatic deadlock detection rolls back one transaction enabling others to proceed. Two-phase commit for distributed transactions coordinates commits across multiple databases, ensuring all participants commit or all rollback maintaining consistency across distributed systems. Option A is incorrect because operations without transactions lack atomicity allowing partial failures, consistency enforcement, or isolation, creating data corruption risks in financial systems. Option C is incorrect because partial updates without rollback create inconsistent states like accounts debited without corresponding credits, violating fundamental financial integrity requirements. Option D is incorrect because ignoring consistency in financial applications causes data corruption, audit failures, and potentially catastrophic financial errors.
Question 167:
A developer needs to implement WebSocket connections for real-time bidirectional communication between client and server. What considerations are important?
A) Use polling instead of WebSockets for all real-time needs
B) Implement WebSocket protocol with proper connection lifecycle management, heartbeat/ping-pong for connection health, message framing, and graceful error handling
C) Establish new HTTP connection for each message
D) Avoid real-time communication entirely
Answer: B
Explanation:
WebSocket implementation with connection lifecycle management, heartbeat mechanisms, and error handling provides efficient real-time communication, making option B the correct answer. Real-time bidirectional communication requires persistent connections that WebSockets provide efficiently. WebSocket protocol upgrade begins with HTTP handshake including Upgrade and Connection headers. Successful handshake transitions to WebSocket protocol providing persistent bidirectional channel without HTTP overhead on each message. Connection lifecycle management handles connection establishment including authentication and authorization during initial handshake, maintaining active connections through application lifetime, and graceful connection closure with proper cleanup of resources. Heartbeat mechanism using ping/pong frames detects broken connections. Servers periodically send ping frames expecting pong responses. Missing pong responses indicate connection failure triggering cleanup and notification to application logic. Message framing supports different message types including text frames for JSON or plain text messages, binary frames for efficient transmission of binary data, and control frames for connection management. Frame types enable flexible data exchange patterns. Reconnection logic handles inevitable connection drops through exponential backoff retry strategies, preserving message ordering across reconnections, and queueing messages during disconnection for retry after reconnection. Scalability considerations include connection pooling where servers manage thousands of concurrent WebSocket connections efficiently, horizontal scaling using Redis or similar stores for pub-sub across multiple server instances, and load balancing with sticky sessions ensuring clients consistently connect to same servers. Security requirements mandate TLS encryption through WSS (WebSocket Secure) protocol, authentication token validation on each connection, origin validation preventing cross-site WebSocket hijacking, and rate limiting on message frequency. Message serialization commonly uses JSON for human-readable messages or Protocol Buffers/MessagePack for compact binary serialization reducing bandwidth usage. Option A is incorrect because polling creates excessive overhead sending frequent HTTP requests even when no new data exists, wasting bandwidth and increasing latency compared to WebSocket push. Option C is incorrect because new connections per message defeats the purpose of real-time communication, introduces massive overhead from connection establishment, and creates scalability issues. Option D is incorrect because many modern applications require real-time features like chat, notifications, or collaborative editing that are impractical without real-time communication mechanisms.
Question 168:
A developer needs to implement API versioning to maintain backward compatibility while evolving the API. What versioning strategy should be used?
A) Make breaking changes without versioning
B) Implement API versioning using URI versioning (v1, v2), header-based versioning, or content negotiation with deprecation policies for old versions
C) Change API randomly without notice
D) Force all clients to upgrade immediately
Answer: B
Explanation:
API versioning using URI, header-based, or content negotiation approaches with deprecation policies enables API evolution while maintaining compatibility, making option B the correct answer. API evolution requires managing multiple versions simultaneously to avoid breaking existing clients. URI versioning embeds version in URL path like /api/v1/users or /api/v2/users. This explicit approach makes versions obvious in documentation and debugging, though it can lead to URL proliferation. Header-based versioning specifies version in custom header like API-Version: 2 or standard Accept header. This keeps URLs clean but makes versions less visible in logs and documentation. Content negotiation uses Accept header media type parameters like Accept: application/vnd.company.v2+json enabling fine-grained control where different resources can have different versions. Semantic versioning applies major.minor.patch scheme where major versions introduce breaking changes, minor versions add backward-compatible functionality, and patches fix bugs without API changes. This convention communicates change impact clearly. Deprecation policies define timeline for phasing out old versions including deprecation announcement period (typically 6-12 months before removal), warning headers in responses like Deprecation: Sun, 01 Jan 2025 00:00:00 GMT, and migration documentation helping clients upgrade. Version support strategy maintains multiple active versions simultaneously during transition periods, providing clear end-of-life dates for each version, and monitoring version usage to understand when old versions can be retired safely. Backward compatibility techniques minimize need for new versions through optional parameters where new features use optional parameters with sensible defaults, additive changes that add fields or endpoints without removing existing ones, and response filtering where newer versions simply return additional fields older clients ignore. Forward compatibility considerations design v1 to ignore unknown fields in requests enabling smooth transition as new versions introduce additional fields, preventing old versions from rejecting requests with new optional parameters. Option A is incorrect because breaking changes without versioning immediately break existing clients causing production failures and customer dissatisfaction. Option C is incorrect because random API changes without communication destroy client trust and make API unmaintainable. Option D is incorrect because forcing immediate upgrades ignores that clients may have different release cycles, update constraints, or resource availability for migration work.
Question 169:
A developer needs to implement idempotent API operations to handle duplicate requests safely. What approach ensures idempotency?
A) Process every request regardless of duplicates
B) Implement idempotency keys and request deduplication where identical requests produce identical results without unintended side effects
C) Allow duplicate operations to execute multiple times
D) Ignore the need for idempotency
Answer: B
Explanation:
Idempotency keys and request deduplication ensuring identical requests produce identical results enables safe retry logic, making option B the correct answer. Network unreliability and client-side retries make idempotency critical for reliable API operations. Idempotency key concept requires clients to include unique request identifier (UUID) in request header like Idempotency-Key: 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000. Servers track processed keys preventing duplicate execution. Request deduplication stores processed idempotency keys with results in cache (Redis) or database. When request arrives, server checks if key exists, returns cached result if found, or processes request and stores result if new. Key expiration balances storage requirements with retry window. Keys might expire after 24 hours allowing retries within reasonable timeframe while preventing indefinite storage growth. Naturally idempotent operations include GET and DELETE where repeating operation produces same result. GET always returns current state, DELETE has same end state whether executed once or multiple times. POST operations require idempotency key mechanism since creating resource multiple times produces duplicate resources. Idempotency keys ensure single resource creation regardless of retry count. PUT operations are naturally idempotent through full resource replacement. Sending same PUT request multiple times results in identical final state. State-changing operations requiring idempotency include payment processing where duplicate charges create financial errors, order placement where duplicate orders cause inventory and fulfillment issues, and resource provisioning where duplicate requests waste resources. Transaction semantics combined with idempotency use database transactions to atomically check idempotency key and execute operation. This prevents race conditions where concurrent requests with same key might both execute. Partial failure handling returns appropriate status codes: 200 OK for successfully completed operation, 409 Conflict if request with same key has different parameters, and 202 Accepted if original request is still processing. Option A is incorrect because processing every request without deduplication causes duplicate operations creating data inconsistency, duplicate charges, or resource waste. Option C is incorrect because allowing duplicate execution of state-changing operations creates serious data integrity and business logic errors. Option D is incorrect because network failures and client retries are inevitable, and without idempotency, building reliable systems is nearly impossible.
Question 170:
A developer needs to implement API documentation that stays synchronized with code. What approach ensures accurate, up-to-date documentation?
A) Write documentation manually and update separately
B) Use OpenAPI/Swagger specification with code-first or spec-first approach generating documentation automatically from code annotations or API specification
C) Don’t document APIs at all
D) Document APIs in emails only
Answer: B
Explanation:
OpenAPI/Swagger with automatic documentation generation from code or specification ensures synchronized, accurate documentation, making option B the correct answer. API documentation must stay current with implementation to be useful, requiring automation to prevent drift. OpenAPI Specification provides standardized format describing REST APIs including endpoints and HTTP methods, request/response schemas, authentication methods, and example requests/responses. This machine-readable specification enables tooling ecosystem. Code-first approach generates OpenAPI specification from code annotations. Frameworks like SpringFox (Java), Swashbuckle (C#), or FastAPI (Python) inspect code annotations and generate specifications automatically ensuring documentation matches implementation. Spec-first approach defines OpenAPI specification first, then generates server stubs and client libraries from specification. This design-first methodology encourages API design discussion before implementation. Interactive documentation using Swagger UI or ReDoc renders OpenAPI specifications as browsable documentation with “Try it out” functionality enabling testing endpoints directly from documentation. This executable documentation serves both as reference and testing tool. Schema validation uses OpenAPI schemas to validate requests and responses automatically. This ensures API implementation matches documented contracts catching discrepancies immediately. API testing from specification generates test cases from OpenAPI examples and schemas. Tools like Dredd or Portman create automated tests validating API behavior against specification. Client SDK generation uses OpenAPI specification to generate client libraries in multiple languages. Generated clients provide type-safe, language-native API access reducing integration effort for API consumers. Versioned documentation tracks API evolution through specification versioning. Each API version has corresponding OpenAPI spec documenting that version’s behavior. Continuous integration validates that code matches specification in CI/CD pipelines. Build failures occur if implementation diverges from documented specification preventing drift. Option A is incorrect because manual documentation inevitably drifts from implementation as code changes, creating inaccurate documentation that misleads developers and causes integration errors. Option C is incorrect because undocumented APIs create friction for consumers requiring code reading or trial-and-error to understand API behavior. Option D is incorrect because email documentation is not searchable, not versioned, not browsable, and quickly becomes outdated and lost.
Question 171:
A developer needs to implement circuit breaker pattern for resilient microservices communication. What does circuit breaker provide?
A) Allow infinite retries on failed services
B) Implement circuit breaker that opens after threshold failures, preventing calls to failing services and allowing recovery time before trying again
C) Never stop calling failing services
D) Crash the application on first failure
Answer: B
Explanation:
Circuit breaker opening after threshold failures prevents cascading failures and allows service recovery, making option B the correct answer. Microservices resilience requires protecting systems from cascading failures when dependencies fail. Circuit breaker states include closed state where requests flow normally to dependency, open state after threshold failures are reached where requests fail immediately without calling dependency, and half-open state after timeout where limited requests are tried to test if dependency recovered. Failure threshold configuration defines criteria for opening circuit like consecutive failures (5 failures in a row), failure rate (50% failures over time window), or slow call rate (too many slow responses). These thresholds detect problem services. Timeout mechanism reopens circuit to half-open state after configured duration like 30 seconds. This recovery period allows troubled service time to recover before receiving full traffic again. Half-open state trial sends limited requests to test dependency health. If requests succeed, circuit closes resuming normal operation. If requests fail, circuit reopens and wait period resets. Fallback strategies provide alternative behavior when circuit is open including returning cached data, using default values, or gracefully degrading functionality. Fallbacks maintain partial service rather than complete failure. Fast failure in open state immediately returns error without waiting for timeout from failed dependency. This responsive failure prevents resource exhaustion from waiting on dead services. Metrics and monitoring track circuit state transitions, failure rates, and open circuit duration. This visibility enables operations teams to detect systemic issues requiring intervention. Bulkhead pattern combined with circuit breaker isolates thread pools per dependency preventing one slow dependency from exhausting entire thread pool and affecting all dependencies. Distributed circuit breaker state sharing across service instances using Redis or similar stores ensures circuit opens consistently across horizontally scaled services rather than each instance opening independently. Option A is incorrect because infinite retries on failing service exacerbate problems causing resource exhaustion, increasing load on already struggling service, and creating cascading failures. Option C is incorrect because continuously calling failing services wastes resources, delays failure detection, and prevents service recovery by maintaining load. Option D is incorrect because crashing on first failure provides no resilience and forces complete service restart rather than gracefully handling transient failures.
Question 172:
A developer needs to implement data caching to improve application performance. What caching strategy should be used?
A) Never cache any data
B) Implement caching with appropriate strategy (cache-aside, read-through, write-through) considering TTL, cache invalidation, and consistency requirements
C) Cache everything indefinitely without expiration
D) Use only in-memory variables without distributed cache
Answer: B
Explanation:
Caching with appropriate strategy, TTL, and invalidation policies optimizes performance while maintaining data consistency, making option B the correct answer. Effective caching requires careful strategy selection based on access patterns and consistency requirements. Cache-aside (lazy loading) pattern has application code check cache first, load from database on cache miss, and populate cache with loaded data. This strategy caches only accessed data avoiding cache pollution from unused data. Read-through caching delegates cache population to cache library. On cache miss, cache itself loads from database transparently to application. This simplification centralizes caching logic but requires cache library supporting read-through. Write-through caching updates both cache and database simultaneously on writes. This ensures cache consistency but adds latency to write operations. Write-through suits read-heavy workloads prioritizing consistency. Write-behind (write-back) caching updates cache immediately and asynchronously persists to database. This improves write performance but risks data loss if cache fails before persistence. Time-to-live (TTL) configuration sets cache entry expiration duration. Short TTL (seconds/minutes) for frequently changing data, longer TTL (hours/days) for stable data. Appropriate TTL balances freshness with cache hit rate. Cache invalidation strategies include time-based expiration through TTL, event-based invalidation where updates explicitly invalidate related cache entries, and versioning approaches where data changes get new cache keys. Cache warming proactively populates cache with likely-needed data before user requests. Warming prevents cache miss storms during traffic spikes or after cache failures. Distributed caching using Redis or Memcached shares cache across application instances enabling consistent caching in horizontally scaled applications. Distributed cache also survives individual instance failures. Cache key design uses hierarchical namespaces enabling batch invalidation like user:123:profile and user:123:preferences where user:123:* invalidation clears all user data. Negative caching stores information about non-existent items preventing repeated database queries for missing data. This protects against cache-miss attacks. Option A is incorrect because no caching forces every request to hit slow backend systems unnecessarily, creating performance bottlenecks and reducing scalability. Option C is incorrect because indefinite caching without expiration serves stale data indefinitely and consumes unbounded memory eventually causing cache system failure. Option D is incorrect because in-memory variables don’t share state across instances in distributed systems and are lost on application restart losing cache benefits.
Question 173:
A developer needs to implement request/response logging for API debugging and audit purposes. What should be logged while protecting sensitive data?
A) Log everything including passwords and credit cards
B) Implement structured logging capturing request/response metadata, sanitized payloads, correlation IDs, and performance metrics while redacting sensitive information
C) Don’t log anything
D) Log only to console without persistence
Answer: B
Explanation:
Structured logging with metadata, sanitization, and correlation IDs provides debugging capability while protecting sensitive data, making option B the correct answer. Effective logging balances observability needs with security and privacy requirements. Structured logging uses consistent format like JSON containing timestamp, log level, service name, and contextual fields. Structured format enables efficient querying and analysis compared to unstructured text logs. Request metadata logging captures HTTP method, URL path, query parameters, request headers (excluding sensitive like Authorization), client IP address, and user agent. Metadata provides context without exposing request bodies. Response metadata includes status code, response headers, response time, and response size. This information enables performance analysis and error detection. Correlation IDs tie related log entries across distributed systems. Unique request ID generated at entry point propagates through all services enabling tracing complete request flow. Correlation ID logging appears in every related log entry. Sensitive data redaction removes or masks sensitive information including passwords, authentication tokens, credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, and other PII before logging. Redaction prevents credential exposure in logs. Payload logging for debugging optionally logs request/response bodies but implements size limits preventing huge payloads from overwhelming log systems, sampling where only percentage of requests are fully logged, and automatic redaction of fields marked sensitive. Performance metrics in logs include database query times, external API call durations, processing time breakdowns, and memory usage. These metrics identify performance bottlenecks. Error logging captures exception stack traces, error messages, error codes, and related request context. Comprehensive error logging accelerates debugging. Log levels (DEBUG, INFO, WARN, ERROR) enable appropriate verbosity for different environments. Production might use INFO/ERROR while development uses DEBUG for detailed tracing. Centralized log aggregation using tools like ELK Stack, Splunk, or CloudWatch Logs consolidates logs from distributed services enabling unified search, analysis, and alerting. Option A is incorrect because logging sensitive data creates security vulnerabilities exposing credentials and PII to anyone with log access, violating compliance requirements. Option C is incorrect because no logging makes debugging nearly impossible and eliminates audit trails required for compliance and security investigations. Option D is incorrect because console-only logging without persistence loses information when applications restart and doesn’t enable historical analysis or alerting.
Question 174:
A developer needs to implement blue-green deployment strategy for zero-downtime releases. How should this be implemented?
A) Deploy directly to production without testing
B) Maintain two identical production environments (blue and green), deploy to inactive environment, validate, then switch traffic with instant rollback capability
C) Take application offline during deployment
D) Deploy to random subset of servers
Answer: B
Explanation:
Blue-green deployment with two identical environments and instant traffic switching provides zero-downtime deployment with safe rollback, making option B the correct answer. Zero-downtime deployment is critical for high-availability applications requiring continuous operation. Environment architecture maintains two identical production environments: blue (currently serving traffic) and green (idle or serving previous version). Identical configuration ensures consistent behavior. Deployment process deploys new version to inactive (green) environment while blue continues serving production traffic. Green deployment and testing occur without impacting production users. Validation phase runs comprehensive testing on green environment including smoke tests verifying basic functionality, integration tests confirming external dependencies work correctly, performance tests ensuring acceptable response times, and optionally canary testing routing small traffic percentage to green for real-user validation. Traffic switching uses load balancer or DNS configuration change to instantly redirect traffic from blue to green. This atomic switch provides near-instant cutover without gradual migration complexity. Zero-downtime cutover means users experience no service interruption. Active sessions may drain from blue while new sessions go to green, or session affinity can be maintained through cutover. Instant rollback capability keeps blue environment with previous version available. If issues are detected post-cutover, traffic switches back to blue within seconds, immediately restoring previous version. Database migrations require special handling ensuring schema changes are backward-compatible so both versions can operate during brief overlap, or using expand-contract pattern where new schema expands to support both versions before contracting by removing old version support. Resource efficiency uses both environments actively by deploying to green, switching traffic, then deploying next version to blue creating alternating deployment targets rather than leaving one idle. Monitoring intensifies post-cutover watching for error rate increases, performance degradation, or user-reported issues. Enhanced monitoring enables rapid issue detection triggering roll back if needed. Infrastructure-as-code defines both environments ensuring they remain truly identical. Configuration drift between environments would undermine deployment reliability. Automated deployment pipelines orchestrate complete blue-green process including deploy to inactive environment, run validation suite, switch traffic if validation passes, and monitor for issues post-cutover. Option A is incorrect because deploying directly to production without testing environment creates high risk of user-impacting defects with no safe rollback mechanism. Option C is incorrect because taking applications offline during deployment creates downtime violating availability requirements and degrading user experience unnecessarily. Option D is incorrect because random server deployment creates inconsistent state where some users see new version and others see old version, potentially causing confusion and data inconsistencies.
Question 175:
A developer needs to implement health checks and readiness probes for containerized applications. What should be checked?
A) Assume containers are always healthy without checks
B) Implement liveness probes checking application responsiveness, readiness probes verifying ability to serve traffic, and startup probes for slow-starting applications
C) Only check if container process is running
D) Never restart unhealthy containers
Answer: B
Explanation:
Implementing liveness, readiness, and startup probes provides comprehensive health monitoring for containerized applications, making option B the correct answer. Container orchestrators like Kubernetes use health probes to maintain application availability through automated recovery. Liveness probes determine whether container is functioning properly. Failed liveness probes trigger container restart. Liveness checks typically verify application responsiveness through HTTP endpoint returning 200 status, TCP socket connection succeeding, or command execution returning zero exit code. Liveness criteria detect deadlocks where application hangs but process continues running, memory leaks causing unresponsiveness, or critical background thread failures. Readiness probes determine whether container can serve traffic. Unlike liveness probes, failed readiness probes remove container from load balancer rotation without restarting. Readiness checks verify database connectivity is established, required caches are loaded, dependent services are accessible, and application initialization completed. Readiness enables graceful startup where containers become ready before receiving traffic, and graceful degradation where temporarily overloaded containers stop receiving traffic until recovered. Startup probes provide extended time for slow-starting applications. Startup probes delay liveness probe activation preventing premature restart of legitimately slow-starting applications. Once startup probe succeeds, liveness probes begin. Probe configuration includes initial delay before first probe, probe interval between checks, timeout for probe response, success threshold (consecutive successes required), and failure threshold (consecutive failures triggering action). HTTP probe implementation creates health endpoint like /health or /ready returning appropriate status codes and optionally health details. Health endpoints check downstream dependencies and internal state. Probe strategies balance responsiveness with overhead. Frequent probes (every 5 seconds) detect issues quickly but increase monitoring overhead. Less frequent probes (every 30 seconds) reduce overhead but increase failure detection time. Dependency checks in probes carefully consider whether dependency failures should fail probes. Readiness probes typically check dependencies since traffic shouldn’t route to containers unable to serve requests. Liveness probes might skip dependency checks since dependency issues shouldn’t trigger container restart. Graceful shutdown handling allows containers to finish in-flight requests before termination. Readiness probe failures during shutdown prevent new traffic while existing requests complete. Option A is incorrect because assuming health without verification allows failed containers to continue serving traffic or consuming resources, degrading user experience. Option C is incorrect because process existence doesn’t indicate application health; processes can run while application is deadlocked, unresponsive, or degraded. Option D is incorrect because never restarting unhealthy containers allows failures to persist indefinitely when restart would often resolve issues like memory leaks or transient failures.
Question 176:
A developer needs to implement secure secrets management for application credentials and API keys. What approach should be used?
A) Store secrets in source code repository
B) Use dedicated secrets management service like HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, or Azure Key Vault with encryption, access controls, and audit logging
C) Store secrets in plain text configuration files
D) Share secrets through email or chat
Answer: B
Explanation:
Dedicated secrets management service with encryption, access controls, and audit logging provides secure credential management, making option B the correct answer. Secrets like database passwords, API keys, and encryption keys require protection beyond typical configuration data. Centralized secrets storage consolidates secrets in dedicated service rather than scattered across configuration files, environment variables, or source code. Centralization enables consistent security controls and simplifies rotation. Encryption at rest protects stored secrets using strong encryption algorithms. Even if storage is compromised, encrypted secrets remain protected. Services like AWS KMS provide encryption key management. Encryption in transit uses TLS for all communication with secrets service ensuring secrets aren’t exposed during retrieval. End-to-end encryption maintains confidentiality throughout secret lifecycle. Access control through IAM policies restricts which applications and users can access specific secrets. Fine-grained permissions implement least privilege where applications only access required secrets. Dynamic secrets generate credentials on-demand with automatic expiration. Database credentials might be generated per application instance with short TTL, limiting exposure window if credentials are compromised. Automatic rotation regularly updates secrets reducing window of opportunity if secrets are compromised. Rotation policies define rotation schedules, and services notify applications of updated secrets. Secret versioning maintains history of secret values supporting rollback to previous versions if rotation causes issues, and enabling gradual credential updates where old and new versions briefly coexist during rotation. Audit logging records all secret access including who accessed which secret when, from where, and whether access was granted or denied. Audit trails support security investigations and compliance. Application integration uses SDKs or APIs to retrieve secrets at runtime rather than embedding in application packages. Applications authenticate to secrets service and retrieve only needed secrets. Injection into containers uses Kubernetes secrets, init containers fetching secrets on startup, or sidecar containers synchronizing secrets continuously. These patterns avoid embedding secrets in container images. Secret scanning in CI/CD pipelines prevents accidental secret commits to source control. Automated scanning detects credential patterns rejecting commits containing secrets. Option A is incorrect because source control repositories expose secrets to everyone with repository access, persist secrets in history even after removal, and violate fundamental security principles. Option C is incorrect because plain text files expose secrets to anyone with file system access and lack encryption protecting against compromise. Option D is incorrect because email and chat are insecure channels where secrets persist in message history, are often accessible to many users, and violate security best practices.
Question 177:
A developer needs to implement distributed tracing for debugging performance issues in microservices architecture. What should be implemented?
A) Debug using only application logs without correlation
B) Implement distributed tracing using OpenTelemetry or similar framework with trace IDs propagating across service boundaries and spans measuring operation duration
C) Monitor only individual services without cross-service visibility
D) Guess where performance problems occur
Answer: B
Explanation:
Distributed tracing with OpenTelemetry using trace IDs and spans provides end-to-end visibility across microservices, making option B the correct answer. Microservices architectures require tracing capabilities connecting operations across multiple services to understand complete request flows. Trace ID uniquely identifies entire request journey across all services. Originating service generates trace ID which propagates through all downstream services via HTTP headers or message metadata. All operations for a request share the same trace ID. Spans represent individual operations within a trace. Each service creates spans for its work including processing the request, calling databases, invoking other services, and performing business logic. Spans contain operation name, start and end timestamps, and tags providing context. Parent-child span relationships form tree structure showing call hierarchy. When service A calls service B, A’s span becomes parent of B’s span. This relationship map reconstructs complete request path. Context propagation passes trace context across service boundaries through headers like traceparent containing trace ID, parent span ID, and sampling decision. Services extract context from incoming requests and inject into outgoing requests. Span attributes include HTTP method and URL, database query strings, error information, and custom business context. Rich attributes enable detailed performance analysis and debugging. Sampling controls tracing overhead by recording only percentage of traces. Head-based sampling decides at trace start, while tail-based sampling decides after trace completes based on characteristics like errors or high latency. Trace backends like Jaeger, Zipkin, or commercial services collect spans from all services, assemble them into complete traces, and provide UI for trace visualization and query. Performance analysis uses traces to identify slow operations, find bottlenecks in request paths, compare latencies across services, and detect anomalous patterns. Distributed tracing integration with metrics and logs creates unified observability where trace IDs appear in logs enabling jumping from traces to related logs, metrics dashboards link to trace examples, and alerts include trace IDs for investigation. Error tracking captures exception information in spans including stack traces, error messages, and span context when errors occurred enabling rapid root cause identification. Option A is incorrect because logs without correlation cannot reconstruct request flows across services making debugging distributed systems extremely difficult. Option C is incorrect because monitoring individual services lacks visibility into inter-service interactions, latency contributions, and end-to-end request behavior. Option D is incorrect because guessing performance problems in complex distributed systems is inefficient and often incorrect, while tracing provides data-driven insight.
Question 178:
A developer needs to implement data serialization for efficient network transmission between services. What format should be used?
A) Use plain text without structure
B) Use efficient serialization format like Protocol Buffers, MessagePack, or Avro providing compact binary encoding with schema support
C) Send data as comma-separated strings
D) Use XML for all data exchange
Answer: B
Explanation:
Efficient serialization formats like Protocol Buffers, MessagePack, or Avro provide compact encoding and schema support for service communication, making option B the correct answer. Data serialization format significantly impacts network bandwidth, latency, and CPU usage. Protocol Buffers define data structures in .proto files specifying message schemas with fields, types, and numbers. Schema-first approach enables code generation in multiple languages producing type-safe serialization and deserialization code. Binary encoding makes Protocol Buffers significantly smaller than JSON or XML, often reducing size by 60-80%. Smaller messages mean lower bandwidth usage and faster transmission. Backward compatibility through field numbers enables schema evolution. New fields can be added without breaking existing clients, and old clients ignore unknown fields in newer versions. Forward compatibility supports reading new formats with old code through optional fields and default values. MessagePack provides JSON-compatible format with binary encoding. It supports same data types as JSON (strings, numbers, arrays, objects) but encodes more efficiently. This compatibility eases migration from JSON. Avro schema evolution supports both backward and forward compatibility through schema resolution rules. Reader schema and writer schema can differ, with Avro handling conversion. Schema accompanies data enabling self-describing messages. Zero-copy deserialization in some formats allows reading serialized data without full deserialization improving performance when only subsets of data are needed. Code generation creates language-native data structures from schemas eliminating manual serialization code and providing type safety preventing serialization errors. Schema registry centralizes schema management for formats like Avro, ensuring compatibility across services and enabling schema validation before deployment. Performance characteristics vary: Protocol Buffers excels at compact size and fast serialization, MessagePack balances human readability with efficiency, and Avro provides rich schema evolution. JSON compatibility considerations matter for browser clients or RESTful APIs where JSON remains standard. Some systems use JSON externally and binary formats internally optimizing for both developer experience and performance. Option A is incorrect because plain text without structure requires manual parsing, lacks type information, is error-prone, and inefficiently uses bandwidth. Option C is incorrect because comma-separated strings lack schema definition, don’t handle nested structures, fail on values containing commas, and are primitive compared to modern serialization. Option D is incorrect because XML is verbose consuming excessive bandwidth, slow to parse consuming CPU, and generally inferior to binary formats for service-to-service communication.
Question 179:
A developer needs to implement graceful degradation when dependent services are unavailable. What strategies should be used?
A) Fail completely when any dependency is unavailable
B) Implement fallback mechanisms including cached data, default values, reduced functionality, and clear user communication about degraded state
C) Crash the application on dependency failure
D) Wait indefinitely for unavailable services
Answer: B
Explanation:
Fallback mechanisms including cached data, default values, and reduced functionality enable graceful degradation maintaining partial service, making option B the correct answer. Resilient applications continue operating with acceptable degradation rather than complete failure when dependencies fail. Cached data fallback serves previously cached responses when live services are unavailable. Cache might contain recent product catalog data, user profile information, or search results enabling continued operation with potentially stale but useful data. Default values provide sensible fallbacks when personalization services fail. Recommendation service failure might return popular items instead of personalized recommendations, preserving user experience with generic but functional alternatives. Reduced functionality disables non-essential features while maintaining core functionality. Social sharing features might become unavailable while core purchasing flow continues operating. Feature flags control which features are essential versus optional. Feature degradation strategies prioritize features during incidents. Critical path features maintain full functionality while nice-to-have features degrade first. This prioritization preserves business value during partial outages. User communication provides transparent status when services are degraded through banners indicating reduced functionality, modified UI removing disabled features, and status pages showing current system health. Clear communication manages user expectations. Timeout configuration prevents waiting indefinitely for failed services. Short timeouts (1-5 seconds) enable fast failure detection and fallback activation, maintaining application responsiveness despite dependency issues. Retry logic with exponential backoff attempts recovery while preventing overwhelming recovering services. Retries with increasing delays balance persistence with resource efficiency. Circuit breaker pattern prevents repeated calls to failing dependencies. After threshold failures, circuit opens preventing additional calls for recovery period before retrying. Testing degradation scenarios includes chaos engineering deliberately injecting failures, game days simulating incident response, and automated testing of fallback paths ensuring fallback logic works when needed. Monitoring degradation includes tracking fallback activation rates, cache hit rates during incidents, and user experience metrics during degraded operation providing visibility into resilience effectiveness. Option A is incorrect because complete failure when any dependency is unavailable creates unnecessarily poor availability, potentially making system less reliable than individual dependencies. Option C is incorrect because crashing prevents any functionality from working when often partial functionality could continue serving users acceptably. Option D is incorrect because indefinite waiting causes resource exhaustion, unresponsive applications, and cascading failures without enabling recovery or fallback.
Question 180:
A developer needs to implement API pagination for endpoints returning large datasets. What pagination approach should be used?
A) Return all records in single response
B) Implement pagination using limit/offset or cursor-based pagination with metadata indicating total count and navigation links
C) Return random subset of records
D) Limit results to arbitrary number without pagination support
Answer: B
Explanation:
Pagination using limit/offset or cursor-based approaches with metadata provides efficient large dataset handling, making option B the correct answer. Pagination enables clients to retrieve large datasets incrementally reducing memory usage, network bandwidth, and response time. Limit/offset pagination uses parameters like limit=20&offset=40 where limit specifies page size and offset specifies starting position. This approach is simple and supports random access to any page but has performance issues with large offsets. Cursor-based pagination uses opaque cursor token pointing to specific position in dataset. Response includes cursor for next page, and clients use this cursor in subsequent requests. Cursor approach performs better for large datasets since it avoids large offset scanning. Page size configuration allows clients to specify desired page size through limit parameter with server-enforced maximum preventing excessive page sizes that could impact performance. Default page size like 20 or 50 provides sensible default when clients don’t specify preference. Response metadata includes total record count enabling clients to calculate total pages, has_next_page boolean indicating more results exist, and navigation links providing URLs for first, previous, next, and last pages following HATEOAS principles. Link headers provide pagination links in HTTP headers like Link: <url>; rel=”next” supporting standard hypermedia navigation without cluttering response body. Stable ordering ensures consistent results across pages through explicit ORDER BY clauses. Unstable ordering causes records to appear multiple times or skip between pages as data changes. Cursor implementation typically encodes position information as base64 string including last seen record ID, timestamp, or combination of sort fields. Encoded cursor prevents client manipulation. Filtering and sorting interaction with pagination requires maintaining filter/sort criteria across page requests. Cursor must encode sort fields to maintain position across pages. Performance optimization for large offsets uses keyset pagination (seek method) where queries filter using last seen values rather than OFFSET. This approach maintains constant performance regardless of page depth. Maximum result limits prevent excessive resource usage through hard limits on retrievable records regardless of pagination, and rate limiting preventing rapid page iteration consuming resources. Option A is incorrect because single response with all records consumes excessive memory, times out for large datasets, and creates poor user experience with slow initial load. Option C is incorrect because random subsets don’t allow viewing complete dataset and prevent deterministic data access required for data processing. Option D is incorrect because arbitrary limits without pagination support prevent accessing data beyond initial limit and don’t provide standard mechanism for incremental retrieval.
