Q28Data Operations and SupportMultiple answers
A company is planning to use a provisioned Amazon EMR cluster that runs Apache Spark jobs to perform big data analysis. The company requires high reliability. A big data team must follow best practices for running cost-optimized and long-running workloads on Amazon EMR. The team must find a solution that will maintain the company's current level of performance. Which combination of resources will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively? (Choose two.)
Select 2 answers.
← → navigate · a answer
Community votes
Discussion · 10
B, D 9
Selected Answer: BD
HDFS is not recommended for persistent storage because once a cluster is terminated, all HDFS data is lost. Also, long-running workloads can fill the disk space quickly. So, S3 is the best option since it's highly available, durable, and scalable.
AWS Graviton-based instances cost up to 20% less than comparable x86-based Amazon
EC2 instances: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/graviton/
5
E is incorrect, Spot instances does not provide high reliability as required by the company.
B, D 3
Selected Answer: BD
B and D.
B, D 3
Selected Answer: BD
s3 no question.
Graviton=> Cost-Effectiveness: Graviton instances are ARM-based instances specifically made for cloud workloads.
They offer meaningful cost savings compared to x86-based instances while still delivering comparable or better performance for many Apache Spark workloads.
Performance: Graviton instances are optimized for Spark workloads and can provide the same level of performance as x86-based instances in many cases. Also, EMR offers performance-optimized versions of Spark built for Graviton instances.
B, D 3
Selected Answer: BD
Rule of thumb: choose the AWS in-house solution provided for that service.
Graviton is aws processor, and also EMRFS on S3.
2
A. - AWS recommends using Amazon S3 as a persistent data store for Amazon EMR because of its scalability, durability, and cost-effectiveness. Storing data in HDFS would mean managing and maintaining extra infrastructure, which may lead to higher costs in storage, management, and scalability compared to using Amazon S3. AWS documentation highlights the advantages of integrating Amazon EMR with Amazon S3 for cost optimization and efficiency.
D. - While Graviton instances may provide cost savings in some scenarios, they might not always be the most cost-effective choice depending on the specific workload requirements and software compatibility. x86-based instances are more widely supported by a broader range of software and frameworks, which could lead to better performance and compatibility in some cases. Additionally, AWS documentation on instance types and pricing can offer insight into the cost-effectiveness of Graviton instances compared to x86-based instances.
1
If you are using instance storage, this is true, but you can use EBS instead of instance storage.
EBS has better performance than s3 for HDFS. This is the key point from the question, so EBS > S3
I would rather pick AD.
1
yes BD is answer
1
My answer is BE
B, D 1
Selected Answer: BD
Cost effective + high reliability > S3
Gravitation > Low cost