Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional SAP-C02 topic 1 question 42 discussion

The correct answer would be option D. This option suggests creating a queue using Amazon SQS, configuring the existing web server to publish to the new queue, and using EC2 instances in an EC2 Auto Scaling group to pull requests from the queue and process the files. The EC2 instances can be scaled based on the SQS queue length, which ensures that the resources are available during peak usage times and reduces costs during non-peak times. Option A is not correct because it suggests using AWS Lambda which has a maximum execution time of 15 minutes. Option B is not correct because it suggests creating a new EC2 instance for each message in the queue, which is not cost-effective. Option C is not correct because it suggests using Amazon EFS, which is not a suitable option for long-term storage of large files.

Not A - Lambda max execution time is 15 minutes, image processing can take up to 1 hour Not B - Amazon MQ is not needed (more expensive then SQS) and EFS is more expensive then S3 Not C - Amazon MQ is not needed (more expensive then SQS) and Lambda max execution time is 15 minutes, image processing can take up to 1 hour D does the job with the lower cost thanks to SQS, S3 and EC2 Auto Scaling Group

Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional SAP-C02 topic 1 question 42 discussion

Lambda will not work, so A is not possible. D is going to be the most cost-effective as the resources will scale based on queue length.

Given the need to process files that can take up to 1 hour each and the variability in workload, option D (Amazon SQS, EC2 Auto Scaling, and S3) appears to be the most cost-effective and practical solution. It leverages SQS for queue management, enabling efficient handling of the processing queue's variability. EC2 Auto Scaling allows for flexible and cost-effective scaling of processing capacity, ramping up during high-demand periods and scaling down when demand wanes, thus optimizing costs. Finally, Amazon S3 offers a highly durable and cost-effective solution for storing the processed media files. This option provides the necessary flexibility for long processing tasks while efficiently managing the variable demand and optimizing storage costs.

Simple Queuing Service SQS is based on pull model. Here are some of the important features: Reliable, scalable, fully-managed message queuing service High availability Unlimited scaling Auto scale to process billions of messages per day Low cost (Pay for use)

This is quite simple. Any answer (A and C) consisting of using Lambda for processing the files is out because of the 15 minutes limit on Lambda processes. B is out because using EFS is expensive and it does not specify how to launch and terminate the EC2 instances. Amazon MQ is not required either. This leaves D which uses SQS, Auto Scaling Groups and publishes the resulting files to S3.

Answer: D You can eliminate A and C right in the beginning: Lambda functions can run up to 15 minutes. B won't help much as you need to create new EC2 instances (manually, apparently) and EFS is more expensive than S3.

d for sure

Because of "Each media file can take up to 1 hour to process" and we know Lambda has a limit in 15 minutes, The correct answer is D

D - https://docs.aws.amazon.com/autoscaling/ec2/userguide/as-using-sqs-queue.html

I sure is B , becauce 1. SQS , SNS are " cloud - native " services : proprietary protocols from AWS 2. Traditional applications running from on - premises may use open protocols such as : MQTT , AMQP ,.., so When migrating to the cloud , instead of re-engineering the application to use SQS and SNS will very expensive, we can use Amazon MQ. 3. Amazon MQ doesn't " scale " as much as SQS / SNS Amazon MQ runs on servers but Amazon MQ has both queue feature ( ~ SQS ) and topic features ( ~ SNS ) https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/SQSDeveloperGuide/sqs-difference-from-amazon-mq-sns.html

SQS and autoscaling no doubt answer is D

SQS and Auto Scaling

D - makes sense.. Lambda can’t run more than 15m. And Amazon MQ is only recommended when migrating existing message brokers that rely on compatibility with APIs such as JMS or protocols such as AMQP, MQTT, OpenWire, and STOMP.. in the question there is no mention for these services ..

A and C are out because lambda does not support more than 15 min. B says, to create an EC2 for each new message which is certainly not cost effective and bad design as well. So answer is D

The most cost-effective migration recommendation to handle peak loads during business hours is to use Amazon SQS to create a queue, configure the existing web server to publish to the new queue, and use Amazon EC2 instances in an EC2 Auto Scaling group to pull requests from the queue and process the files. The EC2 instances should be scaled based on the SQS queue length. Storing the processed files in an Amazon S3 bucket will help in reducing the storage cost. This approach is scalable and can handle peak loads during business hours, while still being cost-effective during non-business hours. Option A is also a possible solution, but using EC2 instances in an EC2 Auto Scaling group is a more scalable and cost-effective solution. Options B and C involve using Amazon EFS, which can be more expensive than Amazon S3.