Which solution meets these requirements and is MOST cost-effective?
One FIFO queue for the paid tier and one standard queue for the free tier.
A single FIFO Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queue for all file types.
A single standard Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queue for all file types.
Two standard Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queues with one for the paid tier and one for the free tier.
Explanations:
Using a FIFO queue for the paid tier ensures order, but standard queues are more cost-effective. FIFO queues incur higher costs compared to standard queues.
A single FIFO queue for both paid and free tiers complicates prioritization and incurs higher costs. FIFO queues are not as cost-effective as standard queues.
A single standard SQS queue would process both paid and free tier users in a first-come, first-served manner, which doesn’t meet the requirement of prioritizing paid tier users first.
Two standard SQS queues are cost-effective, and using separate queues ensures that paid tier videos are processed first without the additional cost of FIFO queues.
I systematize that the answer is:
Two standard Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queues with one for the paid tier and one for the free tier.
I sort that the answer is:
Two standard Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queues with one for the paid tier and one for the free tier.