To speed up data retrieval, more vehicles will be upgraded to cellular connections and be able to transmit data to the ETL process. The current FTP process is error-prone and restarts the data transfer from the start of the file when connections fail, which happens often. You want to improve the reliability of the solution and minimize data transfer time on the cellular connections.
What should you do?
To enhance data reliability and minimize transfer times on cellular connections, it is essential to utilize a storage solution that is optimal for global distribution and redundancy. Directly transferring the files to different Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage bucket locations in the US, EU, and Asia using Google APIs over HTTP(S) ensures that the data is stored in multiple geographic locations, enhancing both reliability and availability. Multi-Regional Storage is designed to serve data consumers worldwide, ensuring faster access and reducing latency, which is critical for the requirements outlined in the question.
c) Multi-Region Name Multi-Region Description asia Data centers in Asia eu Data centers in the European Union1 us Data centers in the United States multi-region is a large geographic area, such as the United States, that contains two or more geographic places.
I think answer is C. Use a multi-region when you want to serve content to data consumers that are outside of the Google network and distributed across large geographic areas, or when you want the higher availability that comes with being geo-redundant.
adding to other explanation, source https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#location_recommendations It's pretty clear that multi-region is good for content serving and not analytics. Only regional and dual regional buckets are good storage for analytics case which exist in the question
D, multi-region increases latency
The real debate is C vs D. Lets look at some docs: Low cost is one of the business requirements. Also, regional has higher Performance than multi-regional https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#considerations Multi regional will be an overkill for analytics as mentioned by Google. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#location_recommendations
Option C seems right here. Directly transferring the files to a different Google Cloud Regional Storage bucket location in US, EU, and Asia using Google APIs over HTTP(S), would not be an effective solution as it would not improve the reliability of the solution. Using Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage, which stores the data in multiple locations, would be a more reliable solution.
just look at this: https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#location_recommendations
Multi-region
D is the correct answer
D is the correct answer
By directly transferring the files to Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage buckets using Google APIs over HTTP(S), you will improve the reliability of the solution and minimize data transfer time on the cellular connections.
Can someone explain why A and B are incorrect ? All the responses focus on C and D.
Container engine which has recyclable pods as FTP server is far fetched. Compute engine and containers should not be used for storage. GCS bucket is better as files can be uploaded from anywhere and is reliable and fast.
C is correct,
I would say it is C
At the beginning I was for B, since it was not clear for me that resumable uploads were available in cloud storage, but they are: https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/resumable-uploads
Go for D. Telemetry data stored in regional (US, Europe and Asia) bucket.
in option D imagine you have 1 regional bucket in US-west and the client is in US-east... latency problems right? with multiregional you don't have the issue... I go for C