Google Professional-Cloud-DevOps-Engineer - Google Cloud Certified - Professional Cloud DevOps Engineer Exam

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Cloud Deploy is a GCP-native managed CI/CD tool for reliable and automated releases across environments.

Artifact Registry Cleanup Policy automates image retention and deletion of old images, reducing storage costs and avoiding clutter.

Rollback and rollback policies should be handled by Cloud Deploy, not manual interventions.

📌Why not other options?

A❌→ Cloud Build jobs for cleanup are not scalable or automated compared to Artifact Registry policies.

B❌→ Cloud Service Mesh is not related to deployment rollbacks or image cleanup.

D❌→ Cloud Deploy provides better rollback management than a custom rollback pipeline.

📌Official Reference:

Google Cloud Deploy Overview

Artifact Registry Cleanup Policy

https://cloud.google.com/logging/docs/routing/overview

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Google Cloud Trace is specifically designed to analyze request latency and identify performance bottlenecks across services. Since the issue is related to slow performance after a new release, the best approach is to use Cloud Trace to:

Visualize request latency across services

Pinpoint slow dependencies affecting response time

Analyze performance trends over time

📌Why not other options?

B (Error Reporting)❌→ Focuses on uncaught exceptions and crashes, not latency issues.

C (Cloud Profiler)❌→ Helps with CPU and memory analysis, not request tracing.

D (Prometheus for Cloud Monitoring)❌→ Useful for metrics collection, but not ideal for debugging specific request latency issues.

📌Official Reference:

Google Cloud Trace Overview

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From General Google Cloud IAM and Organization Policy Knowledge:

The core requirement is to prevent accidental deletion of a Shared VPC host project, even by project owners, by ensuring that only users with a specific permission at the organization level can remove the lien that protects the project.

A lien (resourcemanager.projects.delete) has already been placed on the project. This prevents its deletion. The challenge is to prevent the removal of this lien by project-level administrators.

The permission to remove a lien is resourcemanager.projectLiens.update (or resourcemanager.projects.updateLiens as stated in the question, which implies a broader update capability including liens).

Option A (Enable VPC Service Controls for the container.googleapis.com API service): VPC Service Controls are for data exfiltration prevention by creating service perimeters. They do not directly control IAM permissions for lien management or project deletion.

Option B (Revoke the resourcemanager.projects.updateLiens permission from all users associated with the project): While this would prevent project-level users from removing the lien, it doesn't enforce therequirement that only users with this permission at the organization level can remove it. A project owner could potentially re-grant themselves this permission at the project level if not otherwise restricted. The goal is a stronger, centrally enforced restriction.

Option C (Enable the compute.restrictXpnProjectLienRemoval organization policy constraint): This is specifically designed for the scenario described.Organization Policies allow centralized control over resource configurations across the organization.

The compute.restrictXpnProjectLienRemoval constraint, when enforced (set to True), restricts the removal of liens on Shared VPC host projects. Only users who have the resourcemanager.projectLiens.update permission (or resourcemanager.projects.updateLiens) granted at the organization level can then remove such liens. This prevents project owners or other project-level principals from removing the lien unless they also have this specific permission at the org level.

Option D (Instruct teams to only perform IAM permission management as code with Terraform): While Infrastructure as Code (IaC) is a good practice for managing IAM, it's an operational guideline and doesn't technically enforce the restriction on lien removal. A user with sufficient project-level IAM permissions could still manually remove the lien via the console or gcloud if not prevented by an organization policy.

Therefore, enabling the compute.restrictXpnProjectLienRemoval organization policy is the direct and most effective way to meet the requirement.

Reference (Based on Google Cloud Organization Policy and Shared VPC documentation):

Google Cloud documentation on Resource Manager Liens: https://cloud.google.com/resource-manager/docs/project-liens

Google Cloud documentation on Organization Policy Constraints: https://cloud.google.com/resource-manager/docs/organization-policy/org-policy-constraints

Specifically, the compute.restrictXpnProjectLienRemoval constraint: "When set to true, liens on Shared VPC host projects can only be removed by users that have resourcemanager.projectLiens.update permission on the organization." (or similar wording indicating org-level permission is required). This constraint ensures that the protection afforded by the lien on a critical Shared VPC host project cannot be easily circumvented at the project level.

The best option for configuring Cloud Monitoring to view the number of requests from a specific IP address with minimal operational overhead is to configure the Ops Agent with a logging receiver andcreate a logs-based metric. The Ops Agent is an agent that collects system metrics and logs from your VM instances and sends them to Cloud Monitoring and Cloud Logging. A logging receiver is a configuration that specifies which logs are collected by the Ops Agent and how they are processed. You can use a logging receiver to collect web server logs from your VM instances and send them to Cloud Logging. A logs-based metric is a metric that is extracted from log entries in Cloud Logging. You can use a logs-based metric to count the number of requests from a specific IP address by using a filter expression. You can then use Cloud Monitoring to view and analyze the logs-based metric.

The best option for troubleshooting the issue without having execute access to workloads and nodes is to use Network Connectivity Center to perform a Connectivity Test from Cluster A to Cluster B. Network Connectivity Center is a service that allows you to create, manage, and monitor network connectivity across Google Cloud, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments. You can use Network Connectivity Center to perform a Connectivity Test, which is a feature that allows you to test the reachability and latency between two endpoints, such as GKE clusters, VM instances, or IP addresses. By using Network Connectivity Center to perform a Connectivity Test from Cluster A to Cluster B, you can identify the layer at which the network connectivity is broken, such as the firewall, routing, or load balancing.

https://cloud.google.com/architecture/prep-kubernetes-engine-for-prod#roles_and_groups

https://sre.google/sre-book/managing-incidents/

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From General SRE Principles and Google Cloud Knowledge:

Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) emphasizes reliability, automation, and a data-driven approach to operations. The goal is to minimize the "time to detect" (TTD) and "time to resolve" (TTR) for incidents.

Option A (Ensure that full autonomy and permissions are only granted to the on-call team): While the on-call team needs appropriate permissions to act decisively during an incident, granting full autonomy and only to them can be a bottleneck and goes against the principle of least privilege if not carefully scoped. Broader teams might need specific, controlled access for their responsibilities. SRE encourages empowering teams but within a structured framework.

Option B (Automate common tasks to analyze key impact information and intelligently suggest mitigating actions for the on-call team): This is a core SRE practice. Automation reduces toil, speeds up response, and ensures consistency. Analyzing impact and suggesting mitigations helps the on-call team resolve issues faster and more effectively.

Option C (Ensure that all teams can modify the production environment to resolve issues): This is generally a bad practice and against SRE principles of controlled changes and reducing the blast radius of errors. Production changes should be managed, audited, and ideally automated, not open to modification by all teams, as this increases the risk of unintended incidents.

Option D (Create an alerting mechanism for your SRE team based on your system's internal behavior): While alerting is crucial, SRE emphasizes alerting on symptoms that affect users (Service Level Objectives - SLOs) rather than just internal behavior or causes. Alerting solely on internal behavior can lead to alert fatigue and may not correlate directly with user impact. Good alerting focuses on user-facing impact first.

Option E (Create up-to-date playbooks with instructions for debugging and mitigating issues): Playbooks (or runbooks) are essential in SRE. They document known issues, troubleshooting steps, and mitigation procedures. Keeping them up-to-date ensures that on-call engineers can respond to incidents quickly and consistently, even for less common issues, thereby minimizing customer impact.

Therefore, automating incident response tasks (B) and maintaining clear, actionable playbooks (E) are two key SRE practices to implement for minimizing customer impact.

Reference (Based on SRE principles):

The SRE books by Google (e.g., "Site Reliability Engineering: How Google Runs Production Systems") heavily emphasize automation to reduce toil and the importance of playbooks for incident management.

Google Cloud SRE solutions: https://cloud.google.com/sre

Specifically, regarding playbooks and automation:"Playbooks should be living documents, updated regularly as systems change and new incidents provide new lessons."

"SREs aim to automate repetitive tasks (toil) to free up time for engineering projects that improve reliability."