A low-latency market-data engine runs 10 EC2 instances that exchange small messages thousands of times per second. The team wants the lowest possible network latency and jitter, and they can tolerate single-AZ placement for this tier because another layer handles disaster recovery. Which changes should they make? Select three.

Use a spread placement group to maximize low-latency communication across the fleet.

Incorrect. Spread placement groups are designed for fault isolation by placing instances on distinct underlying hardware, not for network proximity. They are the opposite of what a low-latency, chatter-heavy tier needs.

Distribute the instances across multiple Availability Zones to reduce intra-cluster latency.

Incorrect. Spreading a tightly coupled workload across AZs typically adds latency and jitter because traffic must traverse inter-AZ networking. Multi-AZ is a resilience pattern, not the best choice when the primary goal is the lowest possible communication latency.

What does this SAA-C03 question test?

OSPF neighbours must agree on key parameters.

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: Use a cluster placement group for the instances. — The best design uses a cluster placement group, a Nitro-based instance family with enhanced networking, and single-AZ placement for the latency-sensitive tier. Cluster placement groups minimize network distance between instances, enhanced networking reduces packet overhead, and single-AZ deployment is required for that placement model. That combination is the strongest fit when the workload values latency and jitter over zone-level resilience. Spread placement groups are for fault isolation, not close network adjacency. Multi-AZ placement improves resilience but usually adds latency and is not the goal for a tightly coupled, message-heavy workload.

What should I do if I get this SAA-C03 question wrong?

Then try more questions from the same exam bank and focus on understanding why the wrong options are tempting.