Google Professional Cloud Architect Exam - Topic 5 Question 98 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Cloud Architect exam

Question #: 98
Topic #: 5

[All Professional Cloud Architect Questions]

For this question, refer to the Mountkirk Games case study. You need to analyze and define the technical architecture for the compute workloads for your company, Mountkirk Games. Considering the Mountkirk Games business and technical requirements, what should you do?

ACreate network load balancers. Use preemptible Compute Engine instances.

BCreate network load balancers. Use non-preemptible Compute Engine instances.

CCreate a global load balancer with managed instance groups and autoscaling policies. Use preemptible Compute Engine instances.

DCreate a global load balancer with managed instance groups and autoscaling policies. Use non-preemptible Compute Engine instances.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/nodes/provisioning-sole-tenant-vms#provision_a_sole-tenant_vm

https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/nodes/provisioning-sole-tenant-vms#gcloud_2

When you create a VM, you request sole-tenancy by specifying node affinity or anti-affinity, referencing one or more node affinity labels. You specify custom node affinity labels when you create a node template, and Compute Engine automatically includes some default affinity labels on each node. By specifying affinity when you create a VM, you can schedule VMs together on a specific node or nodes in a node group. By specifying anti-affinity when you create a VM, you can ensure that certain VMs are not scheduled together on the same node or nodes in a node group.

by Alishia at Nov 16, 2024, 06:04 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Professional Cloud Architect Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Micaela

6 days ago

Definitely agree, managed instance groups are key!

upvoted 0 times

...

Venita

12 days ago

I think option C is the best choice for scalability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chaya

17 days ago

I remember a similar question where we had to choose between preemptible and non-preemptible instances, and I think non-preemptible might be safer for a gaming company like Mountkirk.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marguerita

23 days ago

I feel like option C might be the right approach since it combines global load balancing with autoscaling, but I'm a bit confused about when to use preemptible instances.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alva

28 days ago

I think using managed instance groups with autoscaling makes sense for handling variable workloads, but I can't recall if we covered the differences between preemptible and non-preemptible instances in detail.

upvoted 0 times

...

Felicitas

1 month ago

I remember we discussed the importance of load balancing in our last practice session, but I'm not sure if preemptible instances are the best choice for Mountkirk Games.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rodolfo

1 month ago

This is straightforward. The question is asking for a technical architecture, so I'll go with the option that uses the most advanced load balancing and scaling features - that's option D.

upvoted 0 times

...

Amie

1 month ago

I'm a bit confused by the different instance types mentioned. I'll need to research the differences between preemptible and non-preemptible instances to make sure I choose the right option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jean

1 month ago

Hmm, I think I know the answer here. The key is to use preemptible instances to save on costs, but also set up a global load balancer with autoscaling to handle the workload. Option C seems like the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elsa

1 month ago

This looks like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully review the Mountkirk Games case study to understand the business and technical requirements before deciding on the best approach.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mitsue

6 months ago

Option C all the way! Preemptible instances, you say? I bet the Mountkirk developers can code a few extra lives into the game. What could possibly go wrong?

upvoted 0 times

...

Rosendo

6 months ago

Ah, the age-old debate: cost-saving preemptible instances or reliable non-preemptible ones? I say, why not both? Let's spin up a few of each and see which one survives the epic boss battle!

upvoted 0 times

...

Lura

6 months ago

Hmm, preemptible instances? That's a bold move. I hope they don't randomly disappear in the middle of a game session! Option C could work, but I'd be a bit nervous about it.

upvoted 0 times

...

Erinn

6 months ago

I'm not sure about preemptible instances for a gaming company. Reliability might be a concern, so I'd lean towards Option D to ensure a more stable infrastructure.

upvoted 0 times

Johnathon

4 months ago

In that case, Option D seems like the safer choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ocie

4 months ago

True, but reliability is crucial for our business.

upvoted 0 times

...

Penney

4 months ago

But wouldn't preemptible instances save costs for a gaming company?

upvoted 0 times

...

Tarra

5 months ago

I think Option D is the way to go for stability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tammi

6 months ago

Option C seems to be the best choice here. Using preemptible instances with a global load balancer and autoscaling policies should provide the scalability and cost-effectiveness that Mountkirk Games needs.

upvoted 0 times