A company has EC2 instances running in AWS.
The EC2 instances are running in an Auto Scaling group.
There are a lot of requests being lost because of the load on the servers.
The Auto Scaling group is launching new instances to take the load but there are still some requests that are lost.
Which of the following would provide the most cost-effective solution to avoid losing the submitted requests? Choose the correct answer from the options given below.
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.Answer - A.
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) is a fully-managed message queuing service for reliably communicating among distributed software components and microservices - at any scale.
Building applications from individual components that each perform a discrete function improves scalability and reliability, and is best practice design for modern applications.
For more information on SQS, please refer to the below link:
https://aws.amazon.com/sqs/The situation described in the question implies that the current setup of the Auto Scaling group is not able to handle the incoming traffic and requests, which results in some of the requests being lost. The challenge is to find a cost-effective solution to avoid losing these requests.
Option A: Use an SQS queue to decouple the application components. Put the requests in the SQS queue and pull the messages from the queue for further processing in the EC2 instances.
This option proposes using an SQS (Simple Queue Service) queue to decouple the application components. When a request is submitted, instead of directly sending it to the EC2 instances, it is put in the SQS queue. The EC2 instances pull the messages from the queue for further processing. This approach allows the application to handle bursts of traffic as the queue acts as a buffer between the incoming requests and the processing capacity of the EC2 instances. This option is a cost-effective solution as it requires minimal changes to the current setup and SQS is an inexpensive service.
Option B: Keep one extra EC2 instance always powered on.
This option suggests keeping an extra EC2 instance always powered on. The idea is that the extra instance will provide additional processing capacity to handle incoming requests. However, this approach is not cost-effective as it requires additional compute resources to be constantly running, which adds to the cost of the infrastructure. Moreover, it does not address the underlying issue of the Auto Scaling group not being able to handle the incoming traffic.
Option C: Use larger instances for your application.
This option proposes using larger instances for the application. The idea is that larger instances will have more processing capacity, which will enable them to handle more incoming requests. However, this approach is not a cost-effective solution as larger instances are more expensive than smaller ones, and it may not address the underlying issue of the Auto Scaling group not being able to handle the incoming traffic.
Option D: Pre-warm your Elastic Load Balancer.
This option proposes pre-warming the Elastic Load Balancer (ELB). The idea is that pre-warming the ELB will ensure that it is ready to handle the incoming traffic and requests. However, this approach is not a cost-effective solution as it requires additional resources to be allocated to pre-warm the ELB, and it may not address the underlying issue of the Auto Scaling group not being able to handle the incoming traffic.
In summary, option A is the most cost-effective solution to avoid losing the submitted requests. It allows the application to handle bursts of traffic by using SQS as a buffer between the incoming requests and the processing capacity of the EC2 instances.