New Year Sale 2026! 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 SAP-C02 Exam - Topic 1 Question 53 Discussion

Actual exam question for Amazon's SAP-C02 exam
Question #: 53
Topic #: 1
[All SAP-C02 Questions]

A solutions architect needs to advise a company on how to migrate its on-premises data processing application to the AWS Cloud. Currently, users upload input files through a web portal. The web server then stores the uploaded files on NAS and messages the processing server over a message queue. Each media file can take up to 1 hour to process. The company has determined that the number of media files awaiting processing is significantly higher during business hours, with the number of files rapidly declining after business hours.

What is the MOST cost-effective migration recommendation?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/operating-lambda-performance-optimization-part-1/


by Terrilyn at Apr 05, 2025, 12:45 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium SAP-C02 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Tatum
3 months ago
Wait, can Lambda really handle that long processing time?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kris
3 months ago
Option D sounds complicated with EC2 scaling.
upvoted 0 times
...
Anastacia
3 months ago
I agree, Lambda is great for scaling!
upvoted 0 times
...
Bette
3 months ago
Not sure about using EFS in option C, isn't S3 cheaper?
upvoted 0 times
...
Alishia
3 months ago
Option A seems the most efficient with Lambda and S3.
upvoted 0 times
...
In
4 months ago
I feel like using an EC2 Auto Scaling group could be overkill for this scenario, especially if the workload fluctuates so much during business hours.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jerrod
4 months ago
I practiced a similar question where we had to decide between EC2 and Lambda, and I think Lambda might be better here since the processing time is long and variable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carin
4 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think using Amazon S3 for storage is generally more cost-effective than EFS, especially for large media files.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corrie
4 months ago
I remember discussing the benefits of using AWS Lambda for cost efficiency, especially since it only charges for the compute time used.
upvoted 0 times
...
Evette
4 months ago
Option A seems like a good starting point. Leveraging serverless services like SQS and Lambda should help optimize costs and scalability. I'll make sure to review the pricing and performance details for those services to validate the recommendation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Loren
5 months ago
The variable workload during business hours is an important consideration. I like the idea of using an auto-scaling group in option D to handle the fluctuations, but I'm not sure if that would be more cost-effective than the Lambda approach in option A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alverta
5 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the different queue options - what are the key differences between SQS, MQ, and SOS? I'll need to review the AWS service details to understand which one would be the best fit here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daryl
5 months ago
This seems like a straightforward migration scenario, and I think option A looks like the most cost-effective approach. Using Lambda to process the files on-demand should help manage the variable workload.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janae
9 months ago
Wow, 1 hour to process a media file? I wonder if they're using a potato as the processing server. Probably need to upgrade that hardware, ya think?
upvoted 0 times
Josefa
9 months ago
C: I agree, and storing the files in an S3 bucket is cost-effective too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Giuseppe
9 months ago
B: Yeah, Lambda can definitely help speed up the processing time.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hannah
9 months ago
A: A sounds like the best option. Using Lambda to process the files seems efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Latanya
9 months ago
C, really? MO? I think you meant to say SQS. That's a typo waiting to happen on the exam!
upvoted 0 times
...
Pedro
10 months ago
D looks tempting, but the cost of running EC2 instances 24/7 might be higher than the other options. Gotta keep an eye on that queue length.
upvoted 0 times
Casie
8 months ago
C) Create a queue using Amazon MO. Configure the existing web server to publish to the new queue. When there are messages in the queue, invoke an AWS Lambda function to pull requests from the queue and process the files. Store the processed files in Amazon EFS.
upvoted 0 times
...
Buck
8 months ago
A sounds like a good option. Using Lambda for processing can save costs compared to running EC2 instances all the time.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marylyn
9 months ago
B) Create a queue using Amazon M. Configure the existing web server to publish to the new queue. When there are messages in the queue, create a new Amazon EC2 instance to pull requests from the queue and process the files. Store the processed files in Amazon EFS. Shut down the EC2 instance after the task is complete.
upvoted 0 times
...
Veronique
9 months ago
A) Create a queue using Amazon SQS. Configure the existing web server to publish to the new queue. When there are messages in the queue, invoke an AWS Lambda function to pull requests from the queue and process the files. Store the processed files in an Amazon S3 bucket.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Wava
10 months ago
I'm not convinced that EFS is the best storage option here. S3 might be a better choice for its durability and scalability.
upvoted 0 times
Estrella
9 months ago
A: Definitely. Plus, using AWS Lambda to process the files can help with cost-effectiveness and scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maddie
9 months ago
B: I agree. S3 is more durable and scalable compared to EFS. It's a better option for storing the processed files.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alberta
9 months ago
A: I think option A is the best choice. Using Amazon SQS and storing the processed files in an Amazon S3 bucket makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Malcolm
10 months ago
I prefer option D. Using EC2 instances with Auto Scaling can handle high workload.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kip
10 months ago
I agree with Lizbeth. Using Amazon SQS and AWS Lambda seems efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashandra
10 months ago
A seems like the most cost-effective option. Lambda functions are a great way to handle the variable workload without the need to manage EC2 instances.
upvoted 0 times
Anglea
9 months ago
User 3: Lambda functions are great for handling variable workloads efficiently, especially when the number of files to process fluctuates throughout the day.
upvoted 0 times
...
Xochitl
9 months ago
User 2: Definitely, using Lambda functions to process the files based on the queue messages is a smart move.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lyla
9 months ago
User 1: I agree, option A with Lambda functions seems like the best choice for cost-effectiveness.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lizbeth
10 months ago
I think option A is the most cost-effective recommendation.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel