Exam AWS Certified SysOps Administrator - Associate topic 1 question 131 discussion

Use the official AWS cost calculator to compare. B costs way less than A or D for 10,000 IOPS. https://calculator.aws/

B bbbbb

Not D: They require a "storage volume" Fsx is not a storage volume. Not A: This is much more expensive than B NOT C: EFS is not for windows B: With gp3 volumes, customers can scale IOPS (input/output operations per second) and throughput without needing to provision additional block storage capacity.

General Purpose SSD (gp3) volumes are the latest generation of General Purpose SSD volumes, and the lowest cost SSD volume offered by Amazon EBS. This volume type helps to provide the right balance of price and performance for most applications. It also helps you to scale volume performance independently of volume size. This means that you can provision the required performance without needing to provision additional block storage capacity. Additionally, gp3 volumes offer a 20 percent lower price per GiB than General Purpose SSD (gp2) volumes. gp3 volumes provide single-digit millisecond latency and 99.8 percent to 99.9 percent volume durability with an annual failure rate (AFR) no higher than 0.2 percent, which translates to a maximum of two volume failures per 1,000 running volumes over a one-year period. AWS designs gp3 volumes to deliver their provisioned performance 99 percent of the time.

D with the description

B for sure

For me is A. Suitable for mission-critical workloads that require high performance and durability.

EBS are only for EC2 instances. The question does NOT specify any workload on a windows EC2...only that its a Windows workload....So would it not be D? I feel like for the question to be relevant to EBS they would HAVE to specify that its an EC2 instance else we have no way of knowing thats an option. But we know that D is possible.

gp3 is enough

Guys, why not D? https://docs.aws.amazon.com/fsx/latest/WindowsGuide/performance.html#performance-details-fsxw The company doesn't want to pay for unused space, hence they need an elastic file system.

I'm no storage or math guru, but I did find links with formulas to calculate required minimum volume size to achieve 10,000 IOPS: 20 GiB for gp3 volume (10,000 IOPS / 500 IOPS per GiB = 20 GiB) and 200 GiB for io1 volume (10,000 IOPS / 50 = 200 GiB). https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/general-purpose.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/provisioned-iops.html If my math is wrong, correct me. However, since the question states that size matters, since 20 GiB is less than 200 GiB, I'd have to vote "B." gp3.

B - gp3 provides a consistent IOPS baseline performance that is not linearly dependent on the amount of storage we provision. It provides an initial 3000 IOPS baseline regardless and any IOPS above it costs 0.005$. As an example, assuming a size of 1TB and 10000 IOPS using a gp3 volume the monthly cost would be ~165$. Using io1 the same would cost 825$. Evidently, the most cost effective solution is gp3.

This is a tricky one, but I'm inclined toward AAAA

A seems more suitable for the requirement

Max IOPS per volume - 16,000 https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ebs-volume-types.html#vol-type-ssd

Definitely A. gp3 does not offer consistent IOPS which is a requirement on the question. See below: General Purpose SSD volumes (gp2 and gp3) balance price and performance for a wide variety of transactional workloads. These volumes are ideal for use cases such as boot volumes, medium-size single instance databases, and development and test environments. Provisioned IOPS SSD volumes (io1 and io2) are designed to meet the needs of I/O-intensive workloads that are sensitive to storage performance and consistency. They provide a consistent IOPS rate that you specify when you create the volume.

gp3 allow Max IOPS/Volume: 16,000 https://aws.amazon.com/ebs/volume-types/