Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 995 discussion

S3 Intelligent-Tiering is cost-effective for storing large amounts of video content, and since Lambda doesn't work, shouldn't we consider serverless?

A - Video processing can take up to 20 minutes. So lambda is not suitable here. B - Fargate allows running containers without managing EC2 instances, scaling automatically based on demand. Besides, S3 Intelligent-Tiering is cost-effective for storing large video files. C - I gotta say, the SQS is a really good choice here! It's just that S3 Standard is more expensive than S3 Intelligent-Tiering for large files, and that EC2 (even with Auto Scaling) requires managing the underlying infrastructure. D - EKS is more complex to set up but the real issue is that RDS in a single Availability Zone introduces a single point of failure, so scalability and reliability can't be met. Also, S3 Glacier Deep Archive is designed for long-term archival storage with high latency and not suitable for frequently accessed video content.

it is a tough question. terabyte-sized videos are difficult to process. we need to split the videos into chucks either with fargate or EC2. seems DB is essential in this scenario as I have no idea how to get the videos out from s3 without metadata which should be stored into DB. So I prefer B. SQS is used for peak clipping during burst periods.

B and C are both possible but i decided for B because: - Fargate provides serverless containers that scale automatically - No infrastructure management is required - Aurora provides high availability for metadata - S3 Intelligent-Tiering optimizes storage costs automatically - It is not tile limited like Lambda On the other hand C requires more management overhead it is less cost-effective than containerized solutions, and need to manage EC2 instances manually

This is a tough one I would say. I wish B and C can combine. but I vote for B. For B, it is more cost efficiency focus rather than decoupling the whole process for improving overall reliability. For C, the use of SQS is perferct solution for the downside of option B. But EC2 comes in picture which increases the cost and operational complexity. How to pick then? lets go back to the question and see what it focuses - cost or operational compllexity and stability? It looks like it leans more on focusing scalibility and cost-efficiency. In that case, I would go for B because fargate provides cost-efficiency and store just metadata in DB and the rest data in S3 also provides a lower cost and improves its performance.

C makes the most sense out of the options and given requirements.

Answer: C The question did not mention the application need to be containerized , i will choose C

I personally think C, I could be wrong.