Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

MuleSoft Exam MCPA-Level-1 Topic 4 Question 84 Discussion

Actual exam question for MuleSoft's MCPA-Level-1 exam
Question #: 84
Topic #: 4
[All MCPA-Level-1 Questions]

A Mule application exposes an HTTPS endpoint and is deployed to three CloudHub workers that do not use static IP addresses. The Mule application expects a high volume of client requests in short time periods. What is the most cost-effective infrastructure component that should be used to serve the high volume of client requests?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Correct Answer: The CloudHub shared load balancer

*****************************************

The scenario in this question can be split as below:

>> There are 3 CloudHub workers (So, there are already good number of workers to handle high volume of requests)

>> The workers are not using static IP addresses (So, one CANNOT use customer load-balancing solutions without static IPs)

>> Looking for most cost-effective component to load balance the client requests among the workers.

Based on the above details given in the scenario:

>> Runtime autoscaling is NOT at all cost-effective as it incurs extra cost. Most over, there are already 3 workers running which is a good number.

>> We cannot go for a customer-hosted load balancer as it is also NOT most cost-effective (needs custom load balancer to maintain and licensing) and same time the Mule App is not having Static IP Addresses which limits from going with custom load balancing.

>> An API Proxy is irrelevant there as it has no role to play w.r.t handling high volumes or load balancing.

So, the only right option to go with and fits the purpose of scenario being most cost-effective is - using a CloudHub Shared Load Balancer.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Twanna
2 months ago
Good point. The shared load balancer is designed for scenarios like this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maile
3 months ago
Option A could be more expensive to manage and maintain than using CloudHub's built-in solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Renea
3 months ago
Why not a customer-hosted load balancer (Option A)?
upvoted 0 times
...
Maile
4 months ago
I think the CloudHub shared load balancer (Option B) might be the most cost-effective.
upvoted 0 times
...
Twanna
4 months ago
Yeah, high volume of requests in short bursts, sounds challenging.
upvoted 0 times
...
Katheryn
4 months ago
The question is interesting but a bit tricky.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel