Solution 1
The correct answer is: 2. Moderately Ineffective
This approach works, but it is manual and not dynamic. An automatic approach would respond in real time to the changing requirements and would be more cost effective and better for performance.
--
Solution 2
The correct answer is: 5. Highly Effective
This is the best, most optimized solution. A load balancer automatically routes traffic to available resources. With a properly configured autoscaling group with scaling policies, new resources are added and removed due to the real-time traffic requirements.
--
Solution 3
The correct answer is: 4. Moderately Effective
A caching solution like AWS Cloudfront or ElastiCache significantly improves the user experience, reducing the load on backend services and optimizing response times. However, it suffers if the requests are highly dynamic and user-specific. Caching is more effective with static and semi-dynamic content.
--
Solution 4
The correct answer is: 2. Moderately Ineffective
Upgrading the storage system and options can help optimize the experience if storage I/O is the reason for the bottleneck. However, this may not be sufficient, as high-traffic requests typically necessitate increased compute and network performance rather than I/O operations.
--
Solution 5
The correct answer is: 2. Moderately Ineffective
This is a standalone, static resolution, and while it is effective, it is not cost efficient. Vertical scaling is more expensive and less dynamic than horizontally adding and removing resources based on usage demand.