MENU
A company is migrating a monolithic on-premises .NET Framework production application to AWS. Application demand will grow exponentially in the next 6 months. The company must ensure that the application can scale appropriately.
The application currently connects to a Microsoft SQL Server transactional database. The company has well-documented source code for the application. Some business logic is contained within stored procedures.
A solutions architect must recommend a solution to redesign the application to meet the growth in demand.
Which solution will meet this requirement MOST cost-effectively?
Suggested Answer: D
Get Premium SAP-C02 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
35 comments · newest first
YE
Yesenia
11 months ago
Not sure about C, Fargate sounds complicated for this scenario.
HE
Herminia
11 months ago
A is the way to go, RDS for SQL Server is a smart choice!
KI
Kina
11 months ago
Surprised to see D as an option, Aurora Serverless is great but can it handle the load?
SH
Sherron
11 months ago
I think B is better for ease of use with Elastic Beanstalk.
SA
Sarah
12 months ago
Option A seems solid with EC2 Auto Scaling.
VI
Vivienne
12 months ago
I recall that Aurora Serverless can scale automatically, which might be beneficial, but I wonder if it supports all the stored procedures we have in SQL Server.
KA
Kara
1 year ago
I practiced a similar question about migrating to AWS, and I feel like using Lambda functions could be a good way to decouple the application, but I'm not sure about the cost implications.
RO
Rosio
1 year ago
I think using Amazon RDS for SQL Server makes sense since the application already uses SQL Server, but I'm a bit confused about whether to go with Elastic Beanstalk or EC2.
AM
Amie
1 year ago
I remember discussing the importance of using microservices for scalability, but I'm not sure if EC2 Spot Instances are the best choice for a production application.
CH
Chandra
1 year ago
I'm leaning towards Option D. Decoupling the application into microservices with API Gateway and Lambda functions could provide a lot of flexibility and scalability, and Aurora Serverless v2 might be a cost-effective database solution.
GR
Graciela
1 year ago
Option A seems like a good starting point with the use of EC2 Spot Instances and Auto Scaling. The microservices architecture should help with scalability, and storing the data in RDS for SQL Server is a familiar approach.
NO
Norah
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused by the different AWS services mentioned. I'll need to review the details of each option to understand how they work and which one would be the most cost-effective.
GA
Gayla
1 year ago
This looks like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully consider the cost-effectiveness of each option and how well they address the need for scalability.
GE
Genevieve
2 years ago
Wow, these options are making my head spin! I need a coffee break before I can think about this any further.
LO
Loise
2 years ago
Yes, sometimes stepping away for a bit can help clear your mind. Enjoy your coffee!
OC
Octavio
2 years ago
Coffee breaks are essential for productivity. Enjoy your break!
WI
Willodean
2 years ago
I agree, these options can be overwhelming. It's important to take a break and come back with a fresh perspective.
BU
Bulah
2 years ago
Don't worry, take your time to relax and recharge with some coffee.
BL
Blair
2 years ago
Option D is tempting, but I'm not sure about the feasibility of modifying all the stored procedures. Might be a bit of a hassle.
DE
Derick
2 years ago
D: I see your point about modifying stored procedures, but Amazon Aurora Serverless v2 could be worth it for scalability.
GR
Grover
2 years ago
C: Option C seems interesting with AWS Fargate and Amazon DynamoDB Accelerator.
BE
Bev
2 years ago
B: I agree, using Amazon RDS for SQL Server will also help with data storage.
LA
Laquanda
2 years ago
A: Option A sounds like a good choice for scalability with EC2 Auto Scaling.
JU
Junita
2 years ago
That's a good point, but I still think option A is better because it deploys EC2 instances in a cluster placement group for better performance.
OL
Ollie
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe option D is more cost-effective as it decouples the application into microservices and uses AWS Lambda functions.
DE
Derick
2 years ago
Option C is interesting, but using DynamoDB Accelerator for the stored procedures seems risky. I'd stick with a more traditional database approach.
LA
Layla
2 years ago
I'd go with Option B. Elastic Beanstalk makes it easy to manage the microservices, and RDS for MySQL is a reliable database solution.
UL
Ula
2 years ago
Using AWS Application Migration Service will make the migration process smoother.
GA
Gail
2 years ago
RDS for MySQL is a solid database option for storing data and stored procedures.
DE
Delbert
2 years ago
I agree, managing microservices with Elastic Beanstalk is convenient.
RO
Rochell
2 years ago
Option B sounds like a good choice. Elastic Beanstalk is user-friendly.
IV
Ivan
2 years ago
Option A seems the most cost-effective as it uses EC2 Spot Instances and a scalable microservices architecture. Deploying in a cluster placement group should also help with performance.
VI
Victor
2 years ago
I think Option D could also be a good choice. Decoupling the application into microservices and using AWS Lambda functions could provide flexibility for future growth.
WI
Willis
2 years ago
I agree, Option A does seem like the most cost-effective solution. Using EC2 Spot Instances and a microservices architecture should help with scalability.
JU
Junita
2 years ago
I think option A is the best choice because it uses Amazon API Gateway APIs and EC2 Spot Instances for scalability.