Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Google Exam Professional Cloud Architect Topic 5 Question 98 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Cloud Architect exam
Question #: 98
Topic #: 5
[All Professional Cloud Architect Questions]

For this question, refer to the Mountkirk Games case study. You need to analyze and define the technical architecture for the compute workloads for your company, Mountkirk Games. Considering the Mountkirk Games business and technical requirements, what should you do?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/nodes/provisioning-sole-tenant-vms#provision_a_sole-tenant_vm

https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/nodes/provisioning-sole-tenant-vms#gcloud_2

When you create a VM, you request sole-tenancy by specifying node affinity or anti-affinity, referencing one or more node affinity labels. You specify custom node affinity labels when you create a node template, and Compute Engine automatically includes some default affinity labels on each node. By specifying affinity when you create a VM, you can schedule VMs together on a specific node or nodes in a node group. By specifying anti-affinity when you create a VM, you can ensure that certain VMs are not scheduled together on the same node or nodes in a node group.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Mitsue
1 months ago
Option C all the way! Preemptible instances, you say? I bet the Mountkirk developers can code a few extra lives into the game. What could possibly go wrong?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosendo
1 months ago
Ah, the age-old debate: cost-saving preemptible instances or reliable non-preemptible ones? I say, why not both? Let's spin up a few of each and see which one survives the epic boss battle!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lura
1 months ago
Hmm, preemptible instances? That's a bold move. I hope they don't randomly disappear in the middle of a game session! Option C could work, but I'd be a bit nervous about it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erinn
1 months ago
I'm not sure about preemptible instances for a gaming company. Reliability might be a concern, so I'd lean towards Option D to ensure a more stable infrastructure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tammi
2 months ago
Option C seems to be the best choice here. Using preemptible instances with a global load balancer and autoscaling policies should provide the scalability and cost-effectiveness that Mountkirk Games needs.
upvoted 0 times
Adolph
19 days ago
I prefer option D with non-preemptible instances and a global load balancer for better stability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawnda
20 days ago
I think using non-preemptible instances with a global load balancer could also work well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mona
1 months ago
I agree, option C with preemptible instances and a global load balancer seems like the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Helaine
2 months ago
I'm not sure, I think option D might be a better choice for us.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cherilyn
3 months ago
I agree with Zona, option C seems to align with our requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zona
3 months ago
I think we should go with option C.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77