Google Associate-Cloud-Engineer Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The goal is to create a landing zone facilitating private IP communication across production projects and apply organization-wide firewall rules, following best practices and minimizing operational costs.

Network Structure:Individual VPCs with Peering (A, B): While VPC Peering allows private connectivity, managing a full mesh or complex peering topology across many projects becomes operationally complex and can hit peering limits. It's not the recommended pattern for centralized connectivity in a landing zone.

Shared VPC (C, D): This is the Google-recommended practice for scenarios where resources from multiple projects need to communicate privately within a common VPC network. A central host project owns the network, and service projects use it. This simplifies network administration and connectivity.

Firewall Rules:Organization Policies (A, C): These enforce organizational constraints (e.g., disable external IPs, restrict locations) but do not define specific network firewall rules (like allowing TCP ports).

Hierarchical Firewall Policies (B, D): These allow defining firewall rules at the Organization or Folder level, which are inherited by resources in descendant projects/folders. This is the mechanism to apply consistent firewall rules (like allowing specific TCP ports) across all VMs in the organization (or a specific folder) efficiently, without managing rules in each individual VPC or project.

Combining Shared VPC for the network structure (best practice for cross-project private communication and central management) with Hierarchical Firewall Policies (for applying organization-wide firewall rules) meets all requirements efficiently and follows Google recommendations.  

Let's evaluate each option based on the requirement of sub-millisecond latency for globally stored IoT data:

A. Spanner with Caching: While Spanner offers strong consistency and global scalability, the base latency might not consistently be sub-millisecond for all read/write operations globally. Introducing caching adds complexity and doesn't guarantee sub-millisecond latency for all initial reads or cache misses.

B. Bigtable: Bigtable is a highly scalable NoSQL database service designed for low-latency, high-throughput workloads. It excels at storing and retrieving large volumes of time-series data, which is typical for IoT sensor data. Its architecture is optimized for single-key lookups and scans, providing consistent sub-millisecond latency, making it a strong candidate for this use case.

C. BigQuery: BigQuery is a fully managed, serverless data warehouse designed for analytical queries on large datasets. While it's excellent for analyzing IoT data in batch, it's not optimized for the low-latency, high-throughput ingestion and retrieval required for real-time IoT applications with sub-millisecond latency needs.

D. Cloud Storage with Cloud CDN: Cloud Storage is object storage and is not designed for low-latency transactional workloads. Cloud CDN is a content delivery network that caches content closer to users for faster delivery, but it's not suitable for the primary storage of rapidly incoming IoT sensor data requiring sub-millisecond write latency.

Google Cloud Documentation References:

Cloud Bigtable Overview: - This document highlights Bigtable 's suitability for low-latency and high-throughput applications, including IoT. It mentions its ability to handle massive amounts of data with consistent performance.

Spanner Overview: - While Spanner offers low latency, Bigtable is generally preferred for extremely high-throughput, low-latency use cases like raw sensor data ingestion due to its optimized architecture for such workloads.

BigQuery Overview: - This emphasizes BigQuery 's analytical capabilities rather than low-latency operational workloads.

Cloud Storage Overview: - This describes Cloud Storage as object storage, not ideal for sub-millisecond latency reads and writes required for real-time IoT data.

===========