Q: 5
A company used Amazon EC2 instances to deploy a web fleet to host a blog site The EC2 instances
are behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB) and are configured in an Auto ScaSng group The web
application stores all blog content on an Amazon EFS volume.
The company recently added a feature 'or Moggers to add video to their posts, attracting 10 times
the previous user traffic At peak times of day. users report buffering and timeout issues while
attempting to reach the site or watch videos
Which is the MOST cost-efficient and scalable deployment that win resolve the issues for users?
Options
Discussion
Option D but not totally sure. CloudFront in front of ALB made sense to me at first glance. Anybody confirm if that's right?
B . Using instance store volumes seems fast and could help with performance issues, especially since they're directly attached storage. At scale, it might be tricky managing persistence, but the question asks for cost-efficiency too and local disks are cheap. I know C is common for video, but I feel like B works if you handle syncing right. Anyone else see it this way?
I don’t think it’s D. C is the right pick since CloudFront with S3 for videos is much more scalable and cost-effective than serving big files via EFS or directly from ALB. D is a common trap but doesn’t really solve the underlying storage problem. Anyone see a good case for A?
C tbh, because storing videos in S3 and using CloudFront is way more scalable and cost-efficient for heavy video traffic. EFS isn't great for this use case, especially at 10x load. Anyone disagree?
Be respectful. No spam.
