Your managed instance group raised an alert stating that new instance creation has failed to create new instances.
You need to maintain the number of running instances specified by the template to be able to process expected application traffic.
What should you do?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.C.
https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instance-groups/creating-groups-of-managed-instancesThis question is related to managing a managed instance group (MIG) in Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and deals with an alert raised by the MIG that indicates the failure of new instance creation. The objective is to maintain the number of running instances specified by the template to be able to process expected application traffic.
Option A suggests creating a new instance template with valid syntax and deleting any persistent disks with the same name as instance names. Persistent disks are used to store data, and instance templates are used to create instances. In this option, creating a new instance template with valid syntax can help fix any syntax errors that may have caused new instance creation to fail. However, deleting persistent disks with the same name as instance names is not a valid solution, as it will result in data loss.
Option B suggests creating a new instance template with valid syntax and verifying that the instance name and persistent disk name values are not the same in the template. This option is a valid solution, as creating a new instance template with valid syntax can help fix any syntax errors that may have caused new instance creation to fail. Additionally, verifying that the instance name and persistent disk name values are not the same in the template can help prevent conflicts that may have caused the failure of new instance creation.
Option C suggests verifying that the instance template being used by the MIG contains valid syntax, deleting any persistent disks with the same name as instance names, and setting the disks.autoDelete property to true in the instance template. This option is partially valid, as verifying that the instance template contains valid syntax can help fix any syntax errors that may have caused new instance creation to fail. However, deleting persistent disks with the same name as instance names is not a valid solution, as it will result in data loss. Setting the disks.autoDelete property to true in the instance template can help ensure that disks are deleted when the instance is deleted, but it may not be necessary to resolve the current issue.
Option D suggests deleting the current instance template and replacing it with a new instance template. Additionally, it suggests verifying that the instance name and persistent disk name values are not the same in the template and setting the disks.autoDelete property to true in the instance template. This option is a valid solution, as deleting the current instance template and replacing it with a new one with valid syntax can help fix any syntax errors that may have caused new instance creation to fail. Verifying that the instance name and persistent disk name values are not the same in the template can help prevent conflicts that may have caused the failure of new instance creation. Setting the disks.autoDelete property to true in the instance template can help ensure that disks are deleted when the instance is deleted, which is a good practice.
Therefore, the best solution to the problem described in the question is option D: delete the current instance template and replace it with a new instance template. Additionally, verify that the instance name and persistent disk name values are not the same in the template and set the disks.autoDelete property to true in the instance template.