Google Updated Associate-Cloud-Engineer Exam Questions and Answers by owais

Cloud Storage allows world-wide storage and retrieval of any amount of data at any time. We dont need to set up auto-scaling ourselves. Cloud Storage autoscaling is managed by GCP. Cloud Storage is an object store so it is suitable for storing photos. Cloud Storage allows world-wide storage and retrieval so cater well to our worldwide audience. Cloud storage provides us lifecycle rules that can be configured to automatically delete objects older than 30 days. This also fits our requirements. Finally, Google Cloud Storage offers several storage classes such as Nearline Storage ($0.01 per GB per Month) Coldline Storage ($0.007 per GB per Month) and Archive Storage ($0.004 per GB per month) which are significantly cheaper than any of the options above.

Ref: https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs

Ref: https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing

Comprehensive and Detailed In Depth Explanation:

The requirement is to export logs from Cloud Logging to a third-party SaaS tool with the least amount of delay possible. Let's analyze each option:

A. Cloud Scheduler, Cloud Function, and querying Cloud Logging: This approach introduces a delay based on the Cloud Scheduler's cron job frequency. The Cloud Function would periodically query Cloud Logging, which might not capture the logs in real-time. This does not meet the "least amount of delay possible" requirement.

B. Cloud Logging sink to Pub/Sub, SaaS tool subscribing to Pub/Sub: Cloud Logging sinks can be configured to export logs in near real-time as they are ingested into Cloud Logging. Pub/Sub is a messaging service designed for asynchronous and near real-time message delivery. By configuring the sink to send logs to a Pub/Sub topic, and having the SaaS tool subscribe to this topic, logs can be delivered to the SaaS tool with minimal delay. This aligns with the requirement for immediate export.

C. Cloud Logging sink to Cloud Storage, SaaS tool reading Cloud Storage: Exporting logs to Cloud Storage involves a batch-oriented approach. Logs are typically written to files periodically. The SaaS tool would then need to poll or be configured to read these files, introducing a significant delay compared to a streaming approach.

D. Cloud Logging sink to BigQuery, SaaS tool querying BigQuery: Similar to Cloud Storage, exporting to BigQuery is more suitable for analytical purposes. The SaaS tool would need to periodically queryBigQuery, which introduces latency and is not the most efficient way to achieve near real-time log delivery.

Therefore, configuring a Cloud Logging sink to Pub/Sub and having the SaaS tool subscribe to the Pub/Sub topic provides the lowest latency for exporting logs.

Google Cloud Documentation References:

Cloud Logging Sinks Overview: https://cloud.google.com/logging/docs/export/configure_export_v2 - This document explains how to create and manage Cloud Logging sinks, including the available destinations.

Pub/Sub Overview: https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/overview - This highlights Pub/Sub 's capabilities for real-time message delivery and its use cases in streaming data.

Exporting Logs with Cloud Logging: https://cloud.google.com/logging/docs/export - This provides a comprehensive guide to exporting logs from Cloud Logging to various destinations, emphasizing Pub/Sub for streaming.

===========

Let's analyze each option based on the requirements: PostgreSQL compatibility, significant performance improvement, minimal schema/code changes, handling large data volumes, Google-recommended practices, and cost minimization:

A. Migrate your data to AlloyDB: AlloyDB for PostgreSQL is a fully managed, PostgreSQL-compatible database service that offers significant performance improvements over standard PostgreSQL due to its architectural optimizations. It is designed to handle large data volumes and minimizes the need for schema and application code changes as it's wire-compatible with PostgreSQL. This aligns well with the requirements for performance improvement, minimal changes, large data, and being a Google-recommended option for PostgreSQL workloads.

B. Migrate your data to Spanner: Spanner is a globally distributed, horizontally scalable database with strong consistency. While it offers excellent scalability and performance, it's not directly PostgreSQL-compatible. Migrating to Spanner would likely require significant schema and application code changes due to differences in data modeling and SQL dialect.

C. Migrate your data to Firebase: Firebase is a suite of mobile and web development tools, with its primary database offering being Firestore (a NoSQL document database) and Realtime Database. These are not PostgreSQL-compatible and would require substantial changes to the data model and application code.

D. Migrate your data to Bigtable: Bigtable is a highly scalable NoSQL wide-column store. It's not compatible with PostgreSQL and requires a completely different data model and application logic.

Therefore, AlloyDB is the most suitable option as it provides PostgreSQL compatibility for minimal migration effort, significant performance improvements, scalability for large data volumes, and is a recommended Google Cloud database service for PostgreSQL workloads.

Google Cloud Documentation References:

AlloyDB for PostgreSQL Overview: https://cloud.google.com/alloydb/docs/overview - This document highlights AlloyDB 's PostgreSQL compatibility, performance benefits, scalability, and suitability for migrating existing PostgreSQL workloads.

Spanner Overview: https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/overview - This emphasizes Spanner 's unique features and differences from traditional relational databases like PostgreSQL.

Firebase Documentation: https://firebase.google.com/docs - This outlines the features of Firebase, including Firestore and Realtime Database, highlighting their NoSQL nature and incompatibility with PostgreSQL.

Cloud Bigtable Overview: https://cloud.google.com/bigtable/docs/overview - This describes Bigtable as a NoSQL database, emphasizing its differences from relational databases like PostgreSQL.

===========

The goal is to enable teams to deploy infrastructure independently while ensuring compliance with company practices, without requiring teams to understand the underlying details of those practices.

Option A provides deployment capability but doesn't enforce practices. The Editor role is overly broad, and using the gcloud CLI directly requires knowledge of how to configure resources compliantly.

Option B requires teams to learn all the practices, contradicting the requirement that they don't need to know the implementation details.

Option C (Organization Policies) is useful for setting constraints (e.g., disallowing public IPs, restricting regions), but it doesn't provide pre-configured, deployable components that embody best practices. Teams still need to figure out how to build compliant resources within the policy constraints.

Option D (Terraform Modules): This approach encapsulates the company's required practices within reusable infrastructure-as-code modules. Engineering teams can then use these modules as building blocks, providing only the necessary input parameters (like application name orsize). The module handles the compliant implementation details internally. This allows teams to deploy independently and ensures compliance without needing deep knowledge of every practice.

Using standardized, compliant modules is a common pattern for enabling self-service infrastructure deployment while maintaining standards and governance.