Free AWS SOA-C03 Actual Exam Questions - Question 14 Discussion
software is highly sensitive to network latency between nodes, although network throughput is not a
limitation.
Which solution will minimize network latency?
It’s A because cluster placement groups are designed for low-latency network performance by placing instances physically close. Spread groups (D) increase fault tolerance but cause more latency, so D’s no good here.
Totally agree, A is best since it physically groups instances to cut down latency.
It’s A since cluster placement groups optimize for low latency by physically grouping instances.
D imo, since spread placement groups spread instances across different hardware to reduce correlated failures, which actually increases latency. A cluster placement group (A) is meant for low latency by packing instances close, but it requires all instances in the same AZ. Elastic IPs (B) don’t influence latency—they’re more about public IP addressing. Jumbo frames (C) help with throughput and large packet sizes, not latency. So if the key is minimizing latency and all instances are in one AZ, then cluster placement group is the way to go, making D a clear no for this use case.
Yeah, cluster placement groups (A) are designed to keep instances close physically, which cuts latency. The others either don’t affect latency or can even make it worse, so A seems the only real fit.
Option D is out since spread groups actually increase distance for fault tolerance. Also, Elastic IPs (B) won't improve latency. Jumbo frames (C) help throughput, not latency. So A still looks best here.
A. Spread placement groups are for high availability, not low latency. Cluster placement groups physically cluster instances together in one AZ, which is exactly what’s needed to reduce latency here.
A/D? D spreads instances across hardware, which can reduce hardware failure risk but usually adds latency. Since latency matters most here, A is better if they're in the same AZ. Without that info, D might be safer.
D imo, since spread placement groups make sure instances are separated across different hardware to avoid failures, but that could increase latency. A cluster group is better if all in one AZ, but that’s not guaranteed here.
A. Even without explicit AZ info, cluster placement groups are designed to reduce latency by placing instances physically close, so it’s still the best fit over spread groups which prioritize fault tolerance, not latency.
It’s A because cluster placement groups reduce latency by physically grouping instances together.
It’s A, cluster placement groups ensure low latency by placing instances really close.
Jumbo frames (C) mostly help throughput, not latency, so they won’t solve the main issue here. Also, Elastic IPs (B) don’t impact network latency between instances, so those options seem less relevant.
A imo, since cluster placement physically reduces latency between nodes.
A/D? Spread placement groups (D) are meant for spreading instances across hardware to reduce failure risk, not latency. Cluster placement (A) packs them close together, which should help latency way more.
A. Cluster placement groups physically group instances to reduce latency. Spread groups (D) are more for fault tolerance, so they don’t help here. Elastic IPs and jumbo frames won’t address the latency issue directly.
It’s A because cluster placement groups keep instances close on the same hardware, which really cuts latency. B and C don’t affect physical location, and D actually spreads them out, increasing delay.
Option A is definitely the way to go here. Cluster placement groups are designed to put instances physically close on the same rack or within the same AZ, which drastically reduces network latency. The other options don’t really address proximity. Using Elastic IPs (B) won’t improve latency since it’s more about external reachability, and jumbo frames (C) help with throughput but not latency directly. So for sensitive network latency situations, sticking with cluster placement group (A) is the best move.
D imo, spread placement groups scatter instances across different hardware, increasing latency risk, so that’s out. B and C don’t directly reduce latency—only A puts instances physically close, lowering the network delay.
Maybe D isn’t the best pick since spread placement groups are for fault isolation, spreading instances across different racks, which probably adds latency instead of reducing it. B and C don’t really target latency directly—Elastic IPs can add overhead, and jumbo frames mainly affect throughput, not latency. With cluster placement groups (A), the instances are placed physically close in the same AZ, which should lower network latency the most. So A still seems like the best choice when minimizing latency is key here.