What should the solutions architect do to meet these requirements?

Explanations:

This option suggests that Microservice B adds failed messages to a separate SQS queue after failing to process a message four times. However, this approach does not leverage SQS’s built-in dead-letter queue functionality, which automatically handles message failures after the specified number of retries.

This option correctly proposes creating an SQS dead-letter queue and configuring the main SQS queue to deliver messages to the dead-letter queue after they have been received and failed processing four times. This is the intended use of dead-letter queues in SQS, allowing for failed message storage for further investigation.

This option suggests that Microservice A manages the failed messages by adding them to a separate queue after Microservice B fails to process them four times. This approach requires additional logic in Microservice A and does not utilize the SQS dead-letter queue mechanism, which is specifically designed to handle this scenario.

This option involves creating a separate SQS queue for failed messages that pulls from the main queue after four processing failures. This setup complicates the architecture unnecessarily and does not use the built-in dead-letter queue feature of SQS, which is the more appropriate solution for handling message processing failures.