A Kafka workload runs only several times per week and has little traffic at other times.
Reduce broker-capacity planning while retaining Kafka compatibility.
Which option is most appropriate?
Consider Amazon MSK Serverless to retain Kafka clients while reducing broker-capacity provisioning.
Detailed explanation
Removing Kafka changes the client model and violates the compatibility requirement.
Removing Kafka changes the client model and violates the compatibility requirement.
MSK Serverless retains Kafka-compatible topics and clients while simplifying capacity provisioning.
MSK Serverless retains Kafka-compatible topics and clients while simplifying capacity provisioning.
This overprovisions intermittent workloads and increases cost and administration.
This overprovisions intermittent workloads and increases cost and administration.
S3 object lifecycle management does not change MSK broker capacity.
S3 object lifecycle management does not change MSK broker capacity.
Check official documentation
Compare the following points with the official documentation.
Amazon MSK ServerlessのKafka互換性、容量管理、制約、料金の公式説明を確認する。
What to confirm
Serverlessの運用簡素化と、固定ブローカーの容量・コスト管理の違いを説明できる。
Key points
- MSK Serverless
- Kafka compatibility
- Capacity management
- Intermittent traffic
Notes
- Environment: AWS公式DEA-C01試験ガイドと各サービスの公式ドキュメントの確認
- Confirm current AWS service behavior in the official DEA-C01 documentation.
Foundation review
Provisioning trade-off
Fixed brokers provide explicit capacity; a serverless option can reduce idle capacity management.
Feature constraints
Review supported Kafka features, connectivity, quotas, and pricing before choosing serverless.