Exam AWS Certified SAP on AWS - Specialty PAS-C01 topic 1 question 60 discussion

B - 3.6 apps is 60%. Distributing them through 3 AZs would make sure at least 4 servers would be available in case 1 AZ is down.

The SAP application functions reliably as long as the SAP application availability remains greater than 60%. This means that even if 40% of the servers are down, the application can still function reliably. In other words, out of 6 servers, even if 2 are down, the remaining 4 can handle the load. This is exactly what the Auto Scaling group ensures. Auto Scaling ensures that Amazon EC2 instances are automatically added to (scaled out) or removed from (scaled in) your Auto Scaling group, based on the specified conditions. This helps maintain the desired number of instances, even if an instance fails health checks. By distributing the servers across two Availability Zones, the company can ensure high availability and fault tolerance. If one Availability Zone becomes unavailable, the instances in the other Availability Zone continue to be available to handle the application’s load.

Seems like D https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/awsforsap/using-aws-to-enable-sap-application-auto-scaling/

Option B. This is because the company wants to maintain system reliability and the SAP application functions reliably as long as the SAP application availability remains greater than 60%. Distributing the SAP application servers equally across three Availability Zones will ensure that the company can maintain system reliability even if one Availability Zone becomes unavailable. Option A is incorrect because partition placement groups are used to logically separate instances within a single Availability Zone. Option C is incorrect because distributing the SAP application servers equally across two Availability Zones will not provide sufficient redundancy to maintain system reliability. Option D is incorrect because creating an Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling group across two Availability Zones with a minimum capacity value of 4 will not provide sufficient redundancy to maintain system reliability

B it is

This seems right. If one AZ goes down still 4/6 EC2s will be available which is roughly 67%

C cannot be correct, as spreading 6 servers in 2 AZs means 3 servers each. But the requirement is to have 60% of 6 servers, which is 3.6 servers, which means a min of 4 servers.

Both B & D will work, as either option can withstand the downtime of 1 AZ. B is better as it's cheaper - 6 servers across 3 AZs (2 each), so even 1 AZ is down, we still have 4 servers. Option D - 4 servers each in 2 AZ, so if 1 AZ is down, we still have 4 servers. But this solution requires running 8 servers vs 6 servers for option B.

At least four of the six servers must be operational.

Distribute the SAP application servers equally across two Availability Zones.

C, maybe