You have been requested to use CloudFormation to maintain version control and achieve automation for the applications in your organization.
The environment will consist of several networking components and application services.
What is the best way to design the template?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.Answer - A.
Create separate stacks templates.
So, create a separate one for networking that can be managed separately.
Option B is incorrect because custom resources are not the right option for managing multiple components.
Option C is incorrect because you can't have multiple templates in one CloudFormation stack.
Option D is incorrect because maintaining one template can become an issue.
For more information on Cloudformation best practices, please refer to the below link:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/best-practices.htmlCloudFormation is an AWS service that allows you to model and provision AWS infrastructure resources in a repeatable and automated way. With CloudFormation, you can create templates that define your AWS resources, including networking components and application services. These templates can be version-controlled and used to create and manage multiple environments in a consistent and reliable manner.
When designing a CloudFormation template to maintain version control and achieve automation for applications in an organization, there are different approaches you can take. Let's discuss the four options provided in the question.
Option A: Create separate templates based on functionality, create nested stacks with CloudFormation.
This approach involves creating separate templates for different functionality, such as networking components and application services. The templates can then be combined using nested stacks. Nested stacks allow you to reuse templates across multiple CloudFormation stacks, making it easier to manage and maintain your infrastructure.
This approach is useful when you have a complex environment with multiple components that need to be deployed and managed separately. By separating templates by functionality, you can reduce the risk of changes to one component affecting other components.
Option B: Use CloudFormation custom resources to handle dependencies between stacks.
CloudFormation custom resources allow you to extend the functionality of CloudFormation by defining your own resources. With custom resources, you can handle dependencies between stacks that are not supported by CloudFormation natively.
This approach is useful when you have complex dependencies between resources that cannot be handled by CloudFormation alone. For example, if you need to provision a resource outside of AWS and have it integrated with your CloudFormation stack, you can use a custom resource to handle the integration.
Option C: Create multiple templates in one CloudFormation stack.
This approach involves creating multiple templates within a single CloudFormation stack. Each template can define different resources or components of your infrastructure.
This approach is useful when you have a smaller environment with fewer components that are related to each other. By keeping everything in a single stack, it can be easier to manage and deploy the entire environment at once.
Option D: Combine all resources into one template for version control and automation.
This approach involves combining all resources into a single CloudFormation template. This template can then be version-controlled and used to manage the entire environment.
This approach is useful when you have a simple environment with fewer components that are not too complex. By keeping everything in a single template, it can be easier to manage and deploy the entire environment at once.
In conclusion, the best way to design a CloudFormation template to maintain version control and achieve automation for applications in an organization depends on the complexity of the environment and the dependencies between resources. Options A and B are suitable for more complex environments with multiple components and dependencies, while options C and D are suitable for simpler environments with fewer components.