Which solution will meet these requirements with the LEAST development effort?
Modify the CloudFormation stack to set the deletion policy to Retain for the Parameter Store parameters.
Create an Amazon DynamoDB table as a resource in the CloudFormation stack to hold configuration data for the application. Migrate the parameters that the application is modifying from Parameter Store to the DynamoDB table.
Create an Amazon RDS DB instance as a resource in the CloudFormation stack. Create a table in the database for parameter configuration. Migrate the parameters that the application is modifying from Parameter Store to the configuration table.
Modify the CloudFormation stack policy to deny updates on Parameter Store parameters.
Explanations:
Setting the deletion policy to Retain for the Parameter Store parameters ensures that the parameter values are not deleted when the stack is updated. This avoids resetting the parameter values outside the stack while still allowing updates to the CloudFormation stack.
Using DynamoDB as a resource to store configuration data adds unnecessary complexity and development effort. This solution introduces extra resources and doesn’t address the specific issue with parameter values in the Parameter Store.
Using an RDS DB instance to store configuration data also adds unnecessary complexity and development overhead. It doesn’t directly solve the problem of retaining Parameter Store values outside of the stack.
Modifying the CloudFormation stack policy to deny updates on Parameter Store parameters is not a suitable solution. This could lead to conflicts when updates need to occur and does not directly address the problem of retaining the configuration values after stack updates.
As I understand it, the answer is:
Modify the CloudFormation stack to set the deletion policy to Retain for the Parameter Store parameters.
As far as I’m aware, the answer is:
Modify the CloudFormation stack to set the deletion policy to Retain for the Parameter Store parameters.