Explanation:
The correct answer is Cloud SQL (Option A) because it is a fully managed MySQL-compatible service that handles backups, scaling, and maintenance, aligning with the team's need to avoid full management. Options B (self-managed MySQL on VMs) would require more administrative effort. Options C (Bigtable), D (Spanner), and E (Firestore) are non-relational or require schema changes, making them unsuitable for an existing MySQL schema. Cloud SQL allows the team to focus on small administrative tasks while Google manages the infrastructure.
Ultimate access to all questions.
What is the recommended approach for hosting a MySQL relational database on Google Cloud when developing an application with high read/write volume, requiring backups and capacity planning, while minimizing management overhead for a team that can handle only minor administrative tasks?
A
Configure Cloud SQL to host the database, and import the schema into Cloud SQL.
B
Deploy MySQL from the Google Cloud Marketplace to the database using a client, and import the schema.
C
Configure Bigtable to host the database, and import the data into Bigtable.
D
Configure Cloud Spanner to host the database, and import the schema into Cloud Spanner.
E
Configure Firestore to host the database, and import the data into Firestore.
No comments yet.