Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional topic 1 question 522 discussion

Seems like D would be a better choice

A A: The process must complete within 2 seconds. This sounds like what Lambda can do. B\C: Not the most cost efficient compared to Lambda. Scaling may also not be fast enough. D: SQS may have data loss due to DLQ? SQS also does not process in order so this may be another problem unless you use FIFO.

To be PCI DSS compliant dedicated instance is mandatory, so only option C is correct irrespective of any other approach.

A is less overhead than B for use of SQS and in sync invokation of lambdas in 2 seconds

This is a use case for step function. I will go with D because a series of lambda processes this appears to be describing a step function

A seems better than D LEAST complexity and LOWEST cost == API Gateway + Lambda D is wrong! SQS is Asynchronous so the response from API Gateway will be just a 200 http code (or whatever you decide to return). the question stated that response should be immediate which makes D answer invalid

ChatGPT response : Option 2 of creating an Amazon API Gateway to process inbound requests using a single AWS Lambda task is a better option for meeting the bank's objectives with the least complexity and lowest cost while also meeting compliance requirements. This is because it avoids the complexity and overhead of multiple Lambda functions, SQS queues, and coordination of the results between the steps. The single Lambda function can be designed to handle all the steps in the processing of a credit card approval transaction, which would make the implementation simpler and more efficient. Additionally, by having a single Lambda function, it is easier to ensure that the response time of less than 2 seconds and zero data loss requirements are met. Option A looks more relevant

A-> 1000 request per seconds and less than 2 secs to complete, so you can achieve 2000 lambdas running. You need to request a limit increase. Between C and D, but the question emphasis is on LEAST complexity and LOWEST cost, so C looks better.

1000 request per seconds and less than 2 secs response time lambda fits the bill

EC2 is too slow to scale, so that rules out B/C. The question emphasis is on LEAST complexity and LOWEST cost, so I think A the best option. having individual lambdas for each step will increase the complexity and having SQS in between each will increase both complexity and cost

EC2 scale in/out is slow. SQS can be slow too and it is asych.

A for me. Using SQS makes it asynch. How do you respond back to the API call ? Also multiple lambdas and SQS will be slower than option A. Step function is a better option.

D is preferred as it is more robust, with cloud native services etc, but 1000 requests per second with API GW may make this much more expensive, maybe this is why C is proposed

D is the only choice here

No data loss, full compliance to pci

D. gp3 can't set IOPS

D is correct.