SAP-C02 Continuous Improvement for Existing Solutions Practice Question
A company runs a data processing application on EC2 instances that read from an Amazon SQS queue. The application processes each message in about 2 seconds. The company expects a sudden spike in messages and wants to minimize processing latency. Which configuration will handle the spike most cost-effectively?
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Replace the EC2 instances with AWS Lambda functions that are triggered by SQS events.
Using Lambda functions triggered by SQS events provides automatic scaling to handle sudden spikes in message volume without requiring provisioning or managing EC2 instances. Lambda scales instantly based on the number of messages in the queue, and you pay only for compute time used, making it the most cost-effective solution for variable workloads. Option B is incorrect because increasing instance size is less cost-effective and still requires manual scaling. Option C is incorrect because a fixed desired capacity may lead to over-provisioning or under-provisioning during the spike. Option D is incorrect because step scaling based on queue depth introduces latency as it takes time to launch new instances, whereas Lambda reacts immediately per message.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Replace the EC2 instances with AWS Lambda functions that are triggered by SQS events.
Why this is correct
Lambda scales automatically with the number of messages and is cost-effective for variable loads.
- ✗
Increase the EC2 instance size to handle more messages per instance.
Why it's wrong here
Larger instances may be idle; not cost-effective for spikes.
- ✗
Increase the Auto Scaling group's desired capacity to a higher fixed value during the expected spike.
Why it's wrong here
Fixed capacity may be over-provisioned or under-provisioned; not cost-effective.
- ✗
Use Auto Scaling with a step scaling policy based on the SQS queue depth.
Why it's wrong here
Step scaling may have lag; Lambda is more responsive.
Quick reference
Cloud Service Model Comparison
| Model | You Manage | Provider Manages | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| IaaS | OS, runtime, apps, data | Hardware, hypervisor, networking | EC2, Azure VMs, GCP Compute Engine |
| PaaS | Apps and data | OS, runtime, middleware, hardware | Elastic Beanstalk, Azure App Service |
| SaaS | Data and settings only | Everything else | Microsoft 365, Salesforce, Workday |
| FaaS / Serverless | Function code only | Infra, scaling, runtime | Lambda, Azure Functions, Cloud Run |
| CaaS | Containers and apps | Kubernetes, OS, hardware | EKS, AKS, GKE |
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This SAP-C02 question is part of Courseiva's 1,660-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This SAP-C02 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Amazon Web Services certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the SAP-C02 exam.