exam questions

Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 All Questions

View all questions & answers for the AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 exam

Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 987 discussion

A company recently launched a new application for its customers. The application runs on multiple Amazon EC2 instances across two Availability Zones. End users use TCP to communicate with the application.

The application must be highly available and must automatically scale as the number of users increases.

Which combination of steps will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively? (Choose two.)

  • A. Add a Network Load Balancer in front of the EC2 instances.
  • B. Configure an Auto Scaling group for the EC2 instances.
  • C. Add an Application Load Balancer in front of the EC2 instances.
  • D. Manually add more EC2 instances for the application.
  • E. Add a Gateway Load Balancer in front of the EC2 instances.
Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: AB 🗳️

Comments

Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.
Switch to a voting comment New
blehbleh
Highly Voted 7 months ago
Selected Answer: AB
This is A and B. TCP best option is NLB. I know tons of you want to use chat GPT and it's going to tell you application load balancer, then ask chatgpt if an application load balancer really is the best option for TCP and it will be like "aw dang dawg, its not, you're right". Then it will switch to A and B. Because chatgpt doesn't know everything. It's a great tool but you still need to research because it doesn't have all the answers.
upvoted 8 times
classic_manda
6 months, 1 week ago
You are wrong! The question says, what will be the most cost effective way. ALB is much cheaper than the NLB. Thus, the best way to use NLB is when your application requires TCP and UDP connection. In this scenario, the users only communicate using TCP, which the ALB supports including variety of protocols such as, HTTP, HTTPS & SSL. Additionally, ALB's service uptime is up to 99.995%, which falls to the requirement of this question that application must be highly available... and that nullifies your logic! Correct answer is C
upvoted 2 times
...
...
7dcef09
Most Recent 2 weeks, 5 days ago
Selected Answer: AB
I initially selected BC because the question mentions "application" which I immediately assumed Layer 7 communication. However, the question also mentions "End users use TCP to communicate with the application." and looking at the AWS's ELB's comparison, NLB seems like a right fit. Regardless, the question is too vague to fully understand the correct requirements. https://aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/features/#compare
upvoted 1 times
...
Dantecito
2 months, 1 week ago
Selected Answer: AB
TCP = NLB highly available and automatically scale = Auto scaling group
upvoted 1 times
...
LeonSauveterre
3 months, 3 weeks ago
Selected Answer: AB
Even for basic TCP, ALBs are still operating at Layer 7 to some extent. They have to do more processing per connection than an NLB, which operates at Layer 4. This translates to higher resource consumption on the ALB side, even for simple TCP forwarding. Also, both ALBs and NLBs have similar pricing structures based on 1. Hourly usage: You pay for the time the load balancer is running. This is generally comparable between the two. 2. Load Balancer Capacity Units (LCUs) For TCP traffic, NLBs are significantly more efficient in terms of LCU consumption, especially regarding new connections and bytes processed. Even with low connection rates, the overhead of the ALB's Layer 7 processing will usually result in higher LCU consumption and therefore higher costs.
upvoted 1 times
LeonSauveterre
3 months, 3 weeks ago
NLBs are designed to handle millions of connections per second with very low latency. Even if the application in the question doesn't require "extreme connection scaling" right now, using an NLB provides headroom for future growth without incurring significant cost increases. The cost difference between a lightly used NLB and an ALB handling the same basic TCP traffic is usually not substantial enough to justify the potential performance bottleneck and lack of scalability of the ALB for TCP. Lastly, NLB configuration for TCP is generally simpler than configuring an ALB for TCP.
upvoted 1 times
...
...
Ghoneam
4 months, 2 weeks ago
Selected Answer: BC
ALB for TCP
upvoted 1 times
...
siheom
6 months, 1 week ago
Selected Answer: BC
VOTE BC
upvoted 1 times
...
classic_manda
6 months, 1 week ago
Selected Answer: C
ALB is much cheaper than the NLB. Thus, the best way to use NLB is when your application requires TCP and UDP connection. In this scenario, the users only communicate using TCP, which the ALB supports including variety of protocols such as, HTTP, HTTPS & SSL. Additionally, ALB's service uptime is up to 99.995%, which falls to the requirement of this question that application must be highly available.
upvoted 2 times
classic_manda
6 months, 1 week ago
Answer is B and C
upvoted 1 times
...
...
1a0d459
7 months ago
Selected Answer: AB
TCP - NLB
upvoted 4 times
...
Community vote distribution
A (35%)
C (25%)
B (20%)
Other
Most Voted
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.

Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one. So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.

SaveCancel
Loading ...
exam
Someone Bought Contributor Access for:
SY0-701
London, 1 minute ago