
Explanation:
The best balance of cost and predictable performance comes from combining Use io2 for critical data files and Switch gp2 to gp3 and set IOPS/throughput independently. io2 provides sustained, low-latency performance with high and predictable IOPS for the most demanding OLTP components (for example, data files or redo logs). Migrating remaining gp2 volumes to gp3 allows you to provision the exact IOPS and throughput needed without increasing capacity, typically reducing cost versus gp2 while maintaining consistent performance as demand grows. Amazon EFS is a network file system and not block storage. It generally adds latency and is not recommended for OLTP database data files. Amazon FSx for Lustre is designed for high-performance file workloads such as HPC and analytics rather than transactional block I/O, so it is inappropriate for OLTP databases. Throughput Optimized HDD (st1) targets large, sequential throughput and performs poorly for small, random I/O patterns typical of OLTP. For spiky or growing OLTP demand, remember that gp3 decouples performance from capacity and is often the most cost-effective baseline SSD choice, while io2 is the go-to for consistently high, predictable IOPS and low latency. Avoid network file systems and HDD-backed EBS for random I/O database workloads.
Ultimate access to all questions.
For an OLTP database on Amazon EBS with sustained random I/O and spiky demand, which actions best balance cost with predictable IOPS and throughput? (Choose 2)
A
Amazon EFS
B
Use io2 for critical data files
C
Switch gp2 to gp3 and set IOPS/throughput independently
D
Amazon FSx for Lustre
E
Throughput Optimized HDD (st1)
No comments yet.