Which solution will meet these requirements?
Launch five new EC2 instances into a cluster placement group. Ensure that the EC2 instance type supports enhanced networking.
Launch five new EC2 instances into an Auto Scaling group in the same Availability Zone. Attach an extra elastic network interface to each EC2 instance.
Launch five new EC2 instances into a partition placement group. Ensure that the EC2 instance type supports enhanced networking.
Launch five new EC2 instances into a spread placement group. Attach an extra elastic network interface to each EC2 instance.
Explanations:
A cluster placement group allows EC2 instances to be placed close together in the same Availability Zone, providing high-throughput, low-latency network connections. Enhanced networking support improves network performance, making this option ideal for the application’s requirements.
An Auto Scaling group is not necessary since the application does not require fault tolerance. While attaching extra network interfaces might improve performance, it doesn’t specifically address the need for low-latency, high-throughput connections between the instances like a placement group would.
A partition placement group is designed for distributed applications that require high availability and fault tolerance. It does not guarantee the same level of network performance between instances as a cluster placement group. Therefore, it does not meet the application’s low-latency, high-throughput requirements.
A spread placement group is used to distribute instances across different hardware to reduce correlated failures, but it does not provide the low-latency, high-throughput network performance required for the application. Additionally, attaching extra network interfaces does not address the core requirement.
My best guess is:
Launch five new EC2 instances into a cluster placement group. Ensure that the EC2 instance type supports enhanced networking.