Google Associate-Cloud-Engineer - Google Cloud Certified - Associate Cloud Engineer

https://gtseres.medium.com/using-service-accounts-across-projects-in-gcp-cf9473fef8f0#:~:text=Go%20to%20the%20destination%20project,Voila!

https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/mysql/backup-recovery/backups#can_i_export_a_backup

https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/mysql/import-export#automating_export_operations

https://support.google.com/cloudidentity/answer/6262987?hl=en &ref_topic=7558767

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: https://cloud.google.com/bigtable/docs/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: https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/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: https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/introduction - This emphasizes BigQuery 's analytical capabilities rather than low-latency operational workloads.

Cloud Storage Overview: https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/overview - This describes Cloud Storage as object storage, not ideal for sub-millisecond latency reads and writes required for real-time IoT data.

===========

When we create subnets in the same VPC with different CIDR ranges, they can communicate automatically within VPC. Resources within a VPC network can communicatewith one another by using internal (private) IPv4 addresses, subject to applicable network firewall rules

Ref: https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/vpc

The critical constraint for both the website and the background job is the requirement for autoscaling and no costs when not in use (scale to zero). Both workloads are suitable for containerization and HTTP invocation.

Cloud Run is the single best platform for both use cases under these constraints. It is serverless, fully managed, and natively supports scaling to zero when a containerized service is not receiving requests, making it the most cost-effective option for sporadic workloads.

The static website can run in a simple web server container on Cloud Run. The HTTP-triggered background job is a perfect fit for a Cloud Run service that runs, performs its work (invoice generation), and then scales down to zero.

The goal is to enable teams to deploy infrastructure independently while ensuring compliance with company practices, without requiring teams to understand the underlying details of those practices.

Option A provides deployment capability but doesn't enforce practices. The Editor role is overly broad, and using the gcloud CLI directly requires knowledge of how to configure resources compliantly.

Option B requires teams to learn all the practices, contradicting the requirement that they don't need to know the implementation details.

Option C (Organization Policies) is useful for setting constraints (e.g., disallowing public IPs, restricting regions), but it doesn't provide pre-configured, deployable components that embody best practices. Teams still need to figure out how to build compliant resources within the policy constraints.

Option D (Terraform Modules): This approach encapsulates the company's required practices within reusable infrastructure-as-code modules. Engineering teams can then use these modules as building blocks, providing only the necessary input parameters (like application name orsize). The module handles the compliant implementation details internally. This allows teams to deploy independently and ensures compliance without needing deep knowledge of every practice.

Using standardized, compliant modules is a common pattern for enabling self-service infrastructure deployment while maintaining standards and governance.

You can use Google Cloud Deployment Manager to create a set of Google Cloud resources and manage them as a unit, called a deployment. For example, if your team's development environment needs two virtual machines (VMs) and a BigQuery database, you can define these resources in a configuration file, and use Deployment Manager to create, change, or delete these resources. You can make the configuration file part of your team's code repository, so that anyone can create the same environment with consistent results.https://cloud.google.com/deployment-manager/docs/quickstart