After initial stress testing showed that a platform performed well with the specification of a single 32 vCPU node, which of the following will provide the desired service with the LOWEST cost and downtime?
Does this look right? we need 32 vCPU's right? B only gives us 16. I know whomever initially answered went with B because of the load balancing.
But doesn't D accomplish the amount of vCPU's and some availability coverage with the round robin?
C - autoscaler distributes (load balances) the traffic over the instances. this the only chpice that has enough vCPU and has HA. B might not have enough vCPU under stress
I can't fathom how people think B (16 CPU max) will cut the mustard when the baseline is 32.
A. is guaranteed to suffer 100% downtime at some point.
D. is good, but can't scale below 32 to save money and can't keep 32 vCPU if any node fails.
C. Meets all requirements.
In this scenario, the goal is to achieve the desired service with the lowest cost and downtime. Let's evaluate each option:
A. One 32 vCPU node with CDN caching: This option provides a single powerful node but lacks redundancy. If this node fails, it could result in downtime. Additionally, it may not be the most cost-effective solution.
B. Two 8 vCPU nodes with load balancing: This option provides redundancy and can handle traffic spikes efficiently. If one node fails, the load balancer can route traffic to the other node, minimizing downtime. This approach is cost-effective and provides high availability.
C. Three to six 8 vCPU nodes in an autoscaling group: While this option offers scalability and redundancy, it may result in higher costs due to the number of nodes. Autoscaling can also introduce complexity in managing the cluster.
D. Four 8 vCPU nodes with DNS round-robin: DNS round-robin can distribute traffic among multiple nodes, but it lacks the intelligence of a load balancer. If one node fails, some users may experience downtime until DNS updates propagate. This approach is less reliable than option B.
Given the goal of achieving the desired service with the lowest cost and downtime, option B (Two 8 vCPU nodes with load balancing) is the most suitable choice. It balances cost-effectiveness with redundancy and efficient traffic handling, making it a well-rounded solution for the scenario.
With load balancing, you can configure the cloud for many servers working together
and sharing the load. Therefore, redundancy and scalability can be achieved,
Changing my answer to the given answer which is "B". We can eliminate "A" as it doesn't provide any kind of redundancy and of the three remaining options, "B" would facilitate some redundancy and lowest cost.
The only option in my opinion that addresses the "less downtime" requirement is "D" via DNS Round Robin. Load balancing is used to evenly distribute network traffic equally across a pool of resources. DNS Round Robin enables failover because if a server is down, a client will eventually redirect to another IP and reach a redundant server. Load Balancing by itself doesn't provide any kind of redundancy.
32 vCPU's are not strictly required, but show good results even in stress situations, means less might be acceptable in standard situations. Objective was lowest cost, so starting at 2*8 vCPU's might be the starting point.
upvoted 1 times
...
This section is not available anymore. Please use the main Exam Page.CV0-003 Exam Questions
Log in to ExamTopics
Sign in:
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.
Daymeyon
Highly Voted 2 years, 3 months ago14953c1
Most Recent 11 months, 2 weeks agoPisces225
1 year, 1 month agoreto1
7 months, 3 weeks agoFasterN8
1 year, 2 months agogermancano14
1 year, 7 months agoPongsathorn
1 year, 8 months ago14953c1
11 months, 2 weeks agoPongsathorn
1 year, 8 months agoTomtom11
1 year, 9 months agoNo5172685
1 year, 9 months agoSecPlus2022
1 year, 11 months agoSecPlus2022
1 year, 11 months agomaelo
2 years ago