ExamTopics Logo
Mail Us[email protected]
Menu
Amazon Discussions
exam questions

Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C02 All Questions

View all questions & answers for the AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C02 exam
Go to Exam

Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C02 topic 1 question 369 discussion

Exam question from Amazon's AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C02
Question #: 369
Topic #: 1
[All AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C02 Questions]

A company provides an online service for posting video content and transcoding it for use by any mobile platform. The application architecture uses Amazon
Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) Standard to collect and store the videos so that multiple Amazon EC2 Linux instances can access the video content for processing. As the popularity of the service has grown over time, the storage costs have become too expensive.
Which storage solution is MOST cost-effective?

  • A. Use AWS Storage Gateway for files to store and process the video content.
  • B. Use AWS Storage Gateway for volumes to store and process the video content.
  • C. Use Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) for storing the video content. Once processing is complete, transfer the files to Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS).
  • D. Use Amazon S3 for storing the video content. Move the files temporarily over to an Amazon ElasticBlock Store (Amazon EBS) volume attached to the server for processing.
Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D 🗳️
by Aki110 at March 13, 2021, 12:01 a.m.
Disclaimers:
  • - ExamTopics website is not related to, affiliated with, endorsed or authorized by Amazon.
  • - Trademarks, certification & product names are used for reference only and belong to Amazon.

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
Submit Cancel
syu31svc
Highly Voted 3 years, 7 months ago
A and B are wrong as there is no mention of on-premises from the qn Cost effective storage so use S3 Answer is D
upvoted 54 times
robertomartinez
3 years, 7 months ago
Yes... but it's mostly because they cost more, but you could still instanciate file gw in EC2 without any on prem( just because you like the NFS interface for example, and you don't want to bother with an NFS server).
upvoted 1 times
gargaditya
3 years, 5 months ago
File gw connects on prem to access S3 objects,not sure what you are referring to. Volume GW is to backup volume snapshots from on prem to S3. Tape GW is to do tape backups from on prem into cloud(store in S3). Only FSx File Gw exists which allows FSx for windows (in the AWS cloud) to be access locally on prem. no such concept for EFS.
upvoted 4 times
...
...
...
NJo
Highly Voted 3 years, 7 months ago
I think it's D based on below from the link: "Usage examples Given the benefits of Amazon S3 for storage, you might decide to use this service to store files and data sets for use with EC2 instances. There are several ways to move data to and from Amazon S3 to your instances. In addition to the examples discussed below, there are a variety of tools that people have written that you can use to access your data in Amazon S3 from your computer or your instance. Some of the common ones are discussed in the AWS forums. " https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/AmazonS3.html
upvoted 12 times
...
sofiella
Most Recent 2 years, 3 months ago
D. Use Amazon S3 for storing the video content. Move the files temporarily over to an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume attached to the server for processing. Amazon S3 is typically the most cost-effective solution for object storage, and it can be used to store video content. By moving the files temporarily to an Amazon EBS volume attached to the server for processing, you can take advantage of the low cost of Amazon S3 storage while still having fast access to the data for processing. This can be more cost-effective than using Amazon EFS, AWS Storage Gateway for files, or AWS Storage Gateway for volumes.
upvoted 1 times
...
Dimkaaa
2 years, 9 months ago
Selected Answer: C
Go with C. A and B are wrong - "AWS Storage Gateway is a set of hybrid cloud storage services that provide on-premises access to virtually unlimited cloud storage." Nothing about on-premises. D is wrong - Is not CHEAPEST, you need at least one volume for each of "numerous" instances! It isn't cheaper than EFS.
upvoted 1 times
Vantirup
2 years, 8 months ago
It is D, there is no mention of concurrent access and S3 is the cheapest for storage. We are moving from EFS to EBS for processing by Containers and move them to S3 for storage. Option D
upvoted 1 times
...
...
tientong
2 years, 10 months ago
Selected Answer: D
D correct
upvoted 3 times
...
aghaith
3 years, 1 month ago
Selected Answer: A
after reading about Storage gateway, i choose A: Amazon S3 File Gateway presents a file interface that enables you to store files as objects in Amazon S3 using the industry-standard NFS and SMB file protocols, and access those files via NFS and SMB from your data center or Amazon EC2, or access those files as objects directly in Amazon S3 So no need to move files to EFS for processing. which will add more cost
upvoted 3 times
thuanale
3 years ago
I'm also support A with similar reasons. Firstly, AWS EFS is based on NFS and can be mounted on multiple Linux EC2. AWS FSx Lustre supports that as well. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/fsx/latest/LustreGuide/mounting-ec2-instance.html Secondly, data processing directly on Lustre is far more cheaper than copying the same file from S3 to EBS. And EBS store is not cheap, because you need it large enough to store video & should be equal among instances in the cluster. https://aws.amazon.com/fsx/lustre/pricing/?nc=sn&loc=3 https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/ebs/pricing/
upvoted 2 times
...
...
kitkwok
3 years, 2 months ago
It is useless if you can't reach the goal even how cheap the solution are. Always go for possible options and think about the cost at second. For the people go for D, Multi-Attach enabled volumes can be attached to up to 16 Linux instances built on the Nitro System that are in the same Availability Zone. But the question say they may be processed by numerous Amazon EC2 Linux instances. D should be out at first. "So you only use 16 instances for the task?? forever?" https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ebs-volumes-multi.html
upvoted 2 times
igor_nov1
2 years, 11 months ago
Why would I need to attach 16 discs to one instance? I think just one one disc per instance will be enough ;) Each video can be processed independently. So initially all raw videos are in S3. ES2 instance (spinned up on demand specifically for processing, potentially spot instans ) loads this video from S3, process it and store to S3.
upvoted 1 times
...
...
jsannn
3 years, 3 months ago
Selected Answer: D
It's D. For people thinking about A - yes you can install Storage Gateway on EC2 instance without any on prem infrastructure. But you need at least m4.xlarge instance type and must attach additional EBS volume to it. That won't be cheaper than using s3.
upvoted 3 times
Mandalorian24
3 years ago
Storage gateway uses S3 for the data, EBS maybe just for some caching.
upvoted 1 times
...
...
osel
3 years, 3 months ago
haha.. look at C. Juz trying to reverse what is already setup for in the qn. It is nonsense - what does it mean to store in EFS and store again in EBS, then where to process the video content? Should use a local attached EBS with high IOPS for processing the video content and store to EFS, then make sense mah.
upvoted 1 times
...
SimoneP
3 years, 3 months ago
Selected Answer: D
s3 cost effective compared to other choises
upvoted 2 times
...
Vcskgp
3 years, 4 months ago
Should be D. S3 is the most cost effective.
upvoted 2 times
...
Gomer
3 years, 5 months ago
File Gateway "can also be deployed in AWS as an EC2 instance" to provide EC2 with NFS access to S3. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/centralize-data-access-using-aws-transfer-family-and-aws-storage-gateway/
upvoted 1 times
...
gargaditya
3 years, 5 months ago
D. While C can help,it introduces single point of failure for the videos Also,S3 is even cheaper than EBS. In C,files are finally stored in EBS(and intitially in most costly EFS). In D,files aintitially and finally are stored in cheapest S3. Any EC2 can coonect to S3 and even do parallel reads,though one video would be picked by one EC2 (S3 is not good for parallel writes/updates to same data,EFS would be preferred then)
upvoted 2 times
...
grinha
3 years, 6 months ago
with this point "The application design makes use of Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) Standard to gather and store the films so that they may be processed by numerous Amazon EC2 Linux instances" I believe this is C
upvoted 2 times
gargaditya
3 years, 5 months ago
I think it means current design and we need to propose a better solution. This does turn head given option C for EFS.
upvoted 1 times
...
...
vvsandipvv
3 years, 6 months ago
moderator = drunk = permanent here
upvoted 4 times
...
vaaws
3 years, 6 months ago
AAAAAAAAAAA Storage gateway can be used in AWS EC2 instances
upvoted 4 times
...
IdrisAWS
3 years, 6 months ago
Answer is DDDDDDDDD They want MOST Cost effective. C add extra cost of EBS in addition to EFS A & B are for on premises.
upvoted 7 times
...
Load full discussion...
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
exam
Someone Bought Contributor Access for:
SY0-701
London, 1 minute ago