A company runs a website that uses a content management system (CMS) on Amazon EC2. The CMS runs on a single EC2 instance and uses an Amazon Aurora MySQL Multi-AZ DB instance for the data tier. Website images are stored on an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume that is mounted inside the EC2 instance.
Which combination of actions should a solutions architect take to improve the performance and resilience of the website? (Choose two.)
To improve the performance and resilience of the website, move the website images onto an Amazon Elastic File System (EFS) file system that is mounted on every EC2 instance. Amazon EFS provides scalable and shared file storage accessible from multiple EC2 instances, enhancing both performance and availability. Additionally, create an Amazon Machine Image (AMI) from the existing EC2 instance and use it to provision new instances behind an Application Load Balancer as part of an Auto Scaling group. Configure the Auto Scaling group to maintain a minimum of two instances for higher resilience, and set up an Amazon CloudFront distribution to improve website performance by caching content closer to end-users, reducing latency and enhancing delivery speed.
By combining the use of Amazon EFS for shared file storage and Amazon CloudFront for content delivery, you can achieve improved performance and resilience for the website.
A is out of the game for sure. Mount S3 to EC2 ... madness. The question is CE or DE, but it is CE because of AWS Global Accelerator is match with NLB, not ALB as it is staded in option D, thus CE as many of all here noted.
Technically both options AE and CE would work. But S3 is best suited for unstructured data, and the key benefit of mounting S3 on EC2 is that it provides a cost-effective alternative of using object storage for applications dealing with large files, as compared to expensive file or block storage. At the same time it provides more performant, scalable and highly available storage for these applications. Even though there is no mention of 'cost efficient' in this question, in the real world cost is the no.1 factor. In the exam I believe both options would be a pass. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/mounting-amazon-s3-to-an-amazon-ec2-instance-using-a-private-connection-to-s3-file-gateway/
You can't directly mount an S3 bucket on EC2, only through file gateway
Not A because you can't mount an S3 bucket on an EC2 instance. You could use a file gateway and share an S3 bucket via NFS and mount that on EC2, but that is not mentioned here and would also not make sense.
Not A - S3 cannot be mounted (up until few months ago). Exam does not test for the updates in last 6 months.
Both options AE and CE would work, but I choose AE, because, on my opinion, S3 is best suited for performance and resilience.
You can't directly mount an S3 bucket on EC2
First of all you should understand, a website using CMS is a dynamic one not static, so A is out, B is more complicated than C, so C, and between global accelerator and cloudfront, Cloudfront suits better as there is no legacy protocols data(UDP, etc) that needs to be accessed, hence E
I choose AE. Although I don't know if s3 can be mounted on ec2 ?? Maybe wrong wording. Efs is a better choice but its not a natural selection for strong images.
I made the same mistake but mounting S3 on EC2 is a painful operation so EFS makes more sense (C). Option E takes care of caching static images on CDN so that problem is solved along with resilience etc.
You can mount EFS file systems to multiple Amazon EC2 instances remotely and securely without having to log in to the instances by using the AWS Systems Manager Run Command.
https://bluexp.netapp.com/blog/ebs-efs-amazons3-best-cloud-storage-system
You have summarized the reasons why options A and E are the best choices very well. Migrating static website assets like images to Amazon S3 enables high scalability, durability and shared access across instances. This improves performance. Using Auto Scaling with load balancing provides elasticity and resilience. Adding a CloudFront distribution further boosts performance through caching and content delivery.
You can't directly mount an S3 bucket on EC2.
Option C provides moving the website images onto an Amazon EFS file system that is mounted on every EC2 instance. Amazon EFS provides a scalable and fully managed file storage solution that can be accessed concurrently from multiple EC2 instances. This ensures that the website images can be accessed efficiently and consistently by all instances, improving performance In Option E The Auto Scaling group maintains a minimum of two instances, ensuring resilience by automatically replacing any unhealthy instances. Additionally, configuring an Amazon CloudFront distribution for the website further improves performance by caching content at edge locations closer to the end-users, reducing latency and improving content delivery. Hence combining these actions, the website's performance is improved through efficient image storage and content delivery
A and E: S3 is perfect for images. Besides is the perfect partner of cloudfront
A and E is correct. We have a cloud fromt + S3 combo
S3 can't be mounted on EC2 it is not A for sure!
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/mounting-amazon-s3-to-an-amazon-ec2-instance-using-a-private-connection-to-s3-file-gateway/
"Using a ... S3 file gateway"
A and E. C is not correct because You dont mount a new EFS onto existing EC2. If you do that, you have to migrate all exising data in EBS into EFS. Then remove all the EBS. Should never do this.
I can't follow. EFS provides NFS mount points, how can you not mount those onto existing EC2?
EFS, unlike EBS, can be mounted across multiple EC2 instances and hence C over A.
Which answe is correct?the most voted ones or the Suggested answers?
the most voted always