Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Amazon SAA-C03 Exam - Topic 2 Question 63 Discussion

Actual exam question for Amazon's SAA-C03 exam
Question #: 63
Topic #: 2
[All SAA-C03 Questions]

A company is developing a microservices-based application to manage the company's delivery operations. The application consists of microservices that process orders, manage a fleet of delivery vehicles, and optimize delivery routes.

The microservices must be able to scale independently and must be able to handle bursts of traffic without any data loss.

Which solution will meet these requirements with the LEAST operational overhead?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Amazon SQS is a fully managed message queuing service that reliably decouples and scales microservices, distributed systems, and serverless applications. By using SQS, microservices can communicate asynchronously, handle bursts of traffic, and avoid data loss by buffering messages until they are processed. Deploying the services on ECS with AWS Fargate further reduces operational overhead by removing the need to manage servers, allowing independent scaling of each microservice.

Reference Extract:

'Amazon SQS decouples application components and enables message durability and scaling. AWS Fargate removes the need to manage infrastructure, supporting independent scaling and minimal operational overhead.'

Source: AWS Certified Solutions Architect -- Official Study Guide, Microservices and Messaging section.


by Barney at Jul 31, 2025, 05:55 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium SAA-C03 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Herminia
3 months ago
I think option A could work too, but B feels more modern.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gail
3 months ago
Surprised that SQS is preferred over direct API calls!
upvoted 0 times
...
Iesha
3 months ago
I agree, less overhead with containers!
upvoted 0 times
...
Sol
4 months ago
Wait, isn't using EC2 in Auto Scaling groups more flexible?
upvoted 0 times
...
Myra
4 months ago
Option B seems solid with SQS and ECS on Fargate.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glory
4 months ago
I recall that using WebSockets could be more complex and might not be the best for scaling independently. I think I would lean towards option B as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Youlanda
4 months ago
I feel like we practiced a similar question where we had to choose between API Gateway and SQS. I think SQS might be better for this scenario, but I'm not 100% confident.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregg
4 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think using SQS for communication is a solid choice for handling bursts of traffic. It might help with decoupling the services too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yasuko
5 months ago
I remember we discussed the importance of using managed services to reduce operational overhead. I think option B with Amazon ECS on Fargate could be a good fit.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
5 months ago
This is a tricky one. I'm leaning towards Option B with SQS and ECS on Fargate. The use of a message queue like SQS should help with the scalability and burst handling requirements, and Fargate will take care of the container orchestration with minimal operational overhead. But I'll need to double-check the details to be sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Niesha
5 months ago
Okay, let's break this down. We need a solution that can scale independently and handle bursts without data loss. Option A with API Gateway and Auto Scaling groups seems like a good approach, but I'm not sure if it's the "least operational overhead" as required. I'll need to compare the pros and cons of each option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amie
5 months ago
I'm a bit unsure about this one. The requirements around scalability and burst handling are important, but I'm not sure if SQS is the only way to achieve that. The other options like API Gateway and WebSockets also seem viable. I'll need to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Novella
5 months ago
This looks like a classic microservices architecture question. I think the key is to focus on the requirements of scalability and handling bursts of traffic without data loss. Option B with SQS and ECS on Fargate seems like the best fit for that.
upvoted 0 times
...
James
6 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about WebSocket-based communication in Option C. Seems like it might add unnecessary complexity compared to the queue-based approach in Option B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gail
6 months ago
I'm leaning towards option A because of the use of Amazon API Gateway.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dana
7 months ago
I disagree, I believe option D is more suitable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joni
7 months ago
I think option B is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mari
7 months ago
I'm leaning towards Option B as well. Leveraging managed services like SQS and Fargate can help reduce operational overhead, which is key for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
Vanna
6 months ago
I agree, Option B seems like the most efficient solution for this microservices application.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tiara
7 months ago
Option B sounds like the best choice. Using SQS for communication and Fargate for deployment can definitely help with scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Aliza
7 months ago
Option B looks like the way to go. Using SQS for communication and Fargate for deployment seems like a solid choice to meet the scalability and reliability requirements.
upvoted 0 times
Yuriko
7 months ago
It's definitely a scalable and low operational overhead solution for handling bursts of traffic.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hermila
7 months ago
SQS can help manage the communication between microservices efficiently, and Fargate takes care of the deployment without the need to manage servers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Misty
7 months ago
I agree, Option B with SQS and Fargate seems like a good fit for this microservices application.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel