Optimizing Data Transfer for ETL with Cellular Connections
To speed up data retrieval, more vehicles will be upgraded to cellular connections and be able to transmit data to the ETL process. The current FTP process is error-prone and restarts the data transfer from the start of the file when connections fail, which happens often. You want to improve the reliability of the solution and minimize data transfer time on the cellular connections. What should you do?
Answer
Correct answer: D — Directly transfer files to a different Google Cloud Regional Storage bucket location in US, EU, and Asia using Google APIs over HTTP(S) to minimize latency and maximize throughput for the ETL process.
Community Votes
75% of anonymous learners picked answer D. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
The core trap is confusing content serving (where Multi-Regional excels) with data ingestion/ETL (where Regional provides better performance characteristics).
This question evaluates the best storage location strategy to minimize latency and maximize reliability for cellular data uploads destined for an ETL process. It establishes that Regional Storage is superior to Multi-Regional Storage for analytics ingestion due to lower latency and higher throughput.
Many learners select C (Multi-Regional) because they associate it with global availability and redundancy, failing to recognize that the scenario prioritizes transfer speed and reliability over immediate multi-region accessibility.
Community Discussion (115 comments)
ttttttttt
👍 1
Selected: C
C is correct. Using the Google Cloud Storage APIs over HTTP(S) supports resumable uploads, so an interrupted cellular connection can resume from where it stopped instead of retransmitting the entire file. This improves reliability and minimizes cellular data transfer. Multi-Regional Storage also provides highly available storage appropriate for processing the uploaded data without maintaining FTP infrastructure.
41168b9
👍 1
Selected: C
Global Edge Ingress (The "Nearest Door" Principle) Even if the vehicle stays in one spot, its data has to travel over the public internet or a cellular network to reach Google's servers. Multi-Regional Storage leverages Google's Global Load Balancing and Anycast IP network. This means the vehicle connects to the closest Google edge point of presence (PoP) rather than traveling all the way to a single, specific data center. This minimizes the "hops" on the unreliable cellular network, reducing the chance of the connection dropping in the first place.
KCjoe
👍 1
Selected: C
D (Regional vs. Multi-Regional): While Regional buckets are often cheaper for specific compute tasks, Multi-Regional buckets are generally preferred for global ingestion scenarios where vehicles are moving across wide geographic areas, as they provide better availability and geo-redundancy for data that must be accessed by an ETL process spanning multiple regions [1].
ast3citos
👍 1
Selected: C
C: Multi-Regional Storage (US, EU, Asia): Since the vehicles are globally distributed, directing them to a Multi-Regional bucket ensures that the data is ingested at the nearest geographical region's network edge (low ingress latency). The data is then automatically replicated for high availability. NOT D: Using Regional Storage buckets (D) instead of Multi-Regional Storage requires the company to manage multiple endpoints (one for each region). Multi-Regional Storage is preferred here because it automatically manages the replication and provides a single, global endpoint for consumption by the ETL process, while intelligently routing the upload to the closest physical data center.
bigdapper
👍 2
Selected: C
Gemini says option C (multi-regional) is best for this scenario. By having multiple vehicles transfer data to a bucket that is geographically close to them, you minimize network latency. A multi-regional bucket provides low latency access from multiple regions, as data is replicated across multiple data centers within a large geographic area (e.g., the US, EU, or Asia). This speeds up the initial data upload. While using Regional buckets would provide good performance for vehicles in that specific region, it would be inefficient for vehicles far away. A multi-regional bucket is designed to serve a globally distributed user base with lower latency access, which is a better fit for a worldwide fleet of vehicles. The ETL process would also have to retrieve data from different buckets, adding unnecessary complexity.
Clouddude123
👍 2
Selected: C
multi-region bucks are for continental customers which meets the requirements
valgorodetsky
👍 2
Selected: C
They currently have over 500 dealers and service centers in 100 countries
Anj_li
👍 2
Selected: C
Option C is the best choice. It leverages Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage buckets, which ensures faster global access, improves reliability, and minimizes data transfer time, especially for cellular connections. Using Google APIs over HTTP(S) for transfer further improves the overall transfer speed and reliability, as HTTP(S) supports automatic retries and resumable uploads, which significantly reduces the impact of intermittent connectivity issues on data transfers.
Toothpick
👍 4
Everyone voting C are missing the point, you are not serving the data, merely ingesting it. For that , regional buckets provide better latency and bandwidth with lower costs. Multi-regions can be considered for redundancy in the case of regional failures , but it's costly and extremely unlikely for an entire region to go down , zonal replication is good enough in this case
46f094c
👍 2
Selected: C
in option D imagine you have 1 regional bucket in US-west and the client is in US-east... latency problems right? with multiregional you don't have the issue... I go for C
user263263
👍 2
If you put the bucket to us-central, the latency is below 50 ms. Can be seen here https://cloud.google.com/network-intelligence-center/docs/performance-dashboard/how-to/view-google-cloud-latency#global-latency. I don't think that's a big problem.
xaqanik
👍 2
Selected: D
Go for D. Telemetry data stored in regional (US, Europe and Asia) bucket.
edoo
👍 3
Selected: C
At the beginning I was for B, since it was not clear for me that resumable uploads were available in cloud storage, but they are: https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/resumable-uploads
didek1986
👍 1
Selected: C
I would say it is C
35cd41b
👍 1
C is correct,
parthkulkarni998
👍 3
Selected: C
Option C seems right here. Directly transferring the files to a different Google Cloud Regional Storage bucket location in US, EU, and Asia using Google APIs over HTTP(S), would not be an effective solution as it would not improve the reliability of the solution. Using Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage, which stores the data in multiple locations, would be a more reliable solution.
jits1984
👍 2
Selected: C
Multi-region
rusll
👍 2
Selected: D
just look at this: https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#location_recommendations
gotcertified
👍 1
Can someone explain why A and B are incorrect ? All the responses focus on C and D.
AlizCert
👍 1
The question states that they want to get away from FTP because of the frequent connectivity issues.
nideesh
👍 4
Container engine which has recyclable pods as FTP server is far fetched. Compute engine and containers should not be used for storage. GCS bucket is better as files can be uploaded from anywhere and is reliable and fast.
BiddlyBdoyng
👍 5
Selected: D
D, multi-region increases latency
taer
👍 1
Selected: C
By directly transferring the files to Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage buckets using Google APIs over HTTP(S), you will improve the reliability of the solution and minimize data transfer time on the cellular connections.
n_nana
👍 15
Selected: D
adding to other explanation, source https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#location_recommendations It's pretty clear that multi-region is good for content serving and not analytics. Only regional and dual regional buckets are good storage for analytics case which exist in the question
medi01
👍 2
Analytics have nothing to do with it, this is pure injection of the data.
YeJune
👍 1
D is the correct answer
ale_brd_111
👍 1
Selected: D
D is the correct answer
omermahgoub
👍 2
To improve the reliability of the solution and minimize data transfer time on the cellular connections, the best option would be to directly transfer the files to different Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage bucket locations in US, EU, and Asia using Google APIs over HTTP(S). Then, run the ETL process using the data in the bucket. Using Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage will allow the data to be stored in multiple locations, improving the reliability of the solution. Using Google APIs over HTTP(S) will allow the data to be transferred directly to the storage buckets, minimizing the data transfer time on the cellular connections.
omermahgoub
👍 2
Option D, directly transferring the files to a different Google Cloud Regional Storage bucket location in US, EU, and Asia using Google APIs over HTTP(S), would not be an effective solution as it would not improve the reliability of the solution. Using Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage, which stores the data in multiple locations, would be a more reliable solution.
Kulwant85
👍 11
Selected: D
https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#considerations Regional: 200 Gbps (per region, per project) Multi-regional: 50 Gbps (per region, per project)
n_nana
👍 4
Good point, in same source https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#location_recommendations It's pretty clear that multi-region is good for content serving and not analytics. Only regional and dual regional buckets are good storage for analytics case which exist in the question.
surajkrishnamurthy
👍 6
Selected: D
D seems to be the correct answer Sending Data to all Multi Region Buckets >> Incurs more cost , More Latency Sending Data only to Regional Bucket >> Incurs less cost , Less Latency
wisnu_ink
👍 1
Selected: C
C is the right ans
megumin
👍 1
Selected: D
ok for D
AzureDP900
👍 1
I would like to vote D
ShadowLord
👍 1
Selected: C
Having a Mutli Regional bucket makes the App Design for loading Simple - Single Bucket name to load data from where ever - Single Deployment of ETL to load data from Single Bucket to target DB Overall management of Data sync across region is done on Google Backbone network .... anyway somewhere we have to coverge to a single DB anyways
JohnPi
👍 3
Selected: D
Use a region to help optimize latency and network bandwidth for data consumers, such as analytics pipelines, that are run in the same region. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations
JohnPi
👍 3
Selected: D
D - see next question
DAYAGOWDA
👍 3
The next question says its regional buckets :-), so D might be the right answer?
therasmus
👍 3
Selected: D
No need for a multi-region here, it's D
ryzior
👍 2
Selected: D
next question states: Based on the vehicle's location, its telemetry data is stored in a Google Cloud Storage (GCS) regional bucket (US, Europe, or Asia). so looks like D here :)
amxexam
👍 7
Selected: C
1) We all know the issue is with the file sending mechanism. 2) Looking at the option direct bucket is better than FTP service hosted on VM. 3) Also, we will look for multi-regional so there is no latency for long-distance customers. Also, the company has 100 countries it is a multi-regional company. Hence C
AWS56
👍 2
Selected: C
I think C is correct.
OrangeTiger
👍 1
I think C is correct. My understanding is this.Take US as an example. Regional can use only 1 region. Like us-central1,2 .... Mauti Regeonal can use us-central1,2 ..., us-east1,2 ... and any us region.
MF2C
👍 2
Selected: D
regional is faster
AmitMittal
👍 2
Selected: C
Multi-Region Name Multi-Region Description asia Data centers in Asia eu Data centers in the European Union1 us Data centers in the United States
mudot
👍 6
Selected: D
I think the next question has answer to this, in the question :-)
burner_1984
👍 2
thanks for the Tip mate
joe2211
👍 2
Selected: C
vote C
rottzy
👍 2
D is correct
Google
👍 5
I will go with D after reading this Use a region to help optimize latency and network bandwidth for data consumers, such as analytics pipelines, that are grouped in the same region. Use a dual-region when you want similar performance advantages as regions, but also want the higher availability that comes with being geo-redundant. Use a multi-region when you want to serve content to data consumers that are outside of the Google network and distributed across large geographic areas, or when you want the higher availability that comes with being geo-redundant.
PeppaPig
👍 6
D is correct using regional buckets The question mentioned one concerns around resumable upload, and for that you shouldn't use multi-region bucket as it might cause slow upload. see https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/resumable-uploads#upload-performance
PleeO
👍 1
but it isn't sufficient in term of improve the reliability
kopper2019
👍 2
hey guys new Qs posted as of July 12th, 2021, All 21 new Qs in Question #152
victory108
👍 3
C. Directly transfer the files to different Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage bucket locations in US, EU, and Asia using Google APIs over HTTP(S). Run the ETL process using the data in the bucket
MamthaSJ
👍 4
Answer is C
azerty123t
👍 1
I'd go with C. The wording is tricky here. US, ASIA and EU aren't Regions they're actually Multi-regions. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#location-r https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#location-mr region names are actually for example: us-east1, us-east2,..
gg_robin
👍 1
I'm interested to hear the thoughts when it comes to those recommending the regional storage over multi-region. Should you then create one bucket for each region? And how to determine which region is closer?
guid1984
👍 6
IMHO the answer is C, because questions asks about two things "You want to improve the reliability of the solution and minimize data transfer time on the cellular connections." Reliability : - Since terram earth is a global company, i would build some geo redundancy by having multi-regional buckets. Minimize Cellular data transfer time: Please remeber its an upload to storage from devices (ingress) into GCP. Now with 20M devices globally, a multi-region GCS will have less latency in uploading data (due to edge locations/POP) and will minimize data transfer times.
ahmedemad3
👍 2
Ans: C The business requirements state that they want to "Expand beyond a single data center to decrease latency to the American Midwest and East Coast specifically."
HKim
👍 1
Sorry. I meant D
babup
👍 4
My Option is C: Key words: Want to improve the reliability of the solution and minimize data transfer time on the cellular connections. Ref document: Use a region to help optimize latency and network bandwidth for data consumers, such as analytics pipelines, that are grouped in the same region. Use a dual-region when you want similar performance advantages as regions, but also want the higher availability that comes with being geo-redundant. Use a multi-region when you want to serve content to data consumers that are outside of the Google network and distributed across large geographic areas, or when you want the higher availability that comes with being geo-redundant. Generally, you should store your data in a location that is convenient or contains the majority of the users of your data. Multi region bucket increase the availability and reduce the latency for upload.
HKim
👍 4
I think D is better than C since regional storage buckets have lower latency for write. Multi-regional storage buckets have CDN integration for better read performance but that will not help here since we are writing.
HKim
👍 1
Looking at the next question, I tend to think C is the answer.
JasminL
👍 1
"All this redundancy and caching means that Multiregional comes with overhead to sync and ensure consistency between geo-diverse areas. As such, it’s much better for write-once-read-many scenarios. This means frequently accessed (e.g. “hot” objects) around the world, such as website content, streaming videos, gaming or mobile applications." https://medium.com/google-cloud/google-cloud-storage-what-bucket-class-for-the-best-performance-5c847ac8f9f2 According to above, this does not sound multi-regional buckets fit with ETL process. As the data for ETL is not 'hot' object.
doumx
👍 1
D the correct answer :)
hems4all
👍 7
D is correct answer: We don't need Multi-Regional Storage buckets. Google recommends you use a multi-region when you want to serve content to data consumers that are outside of the Google network and distributed across large geographic areas, or when you want the higher availability that comes with being geo-redundant. This scenario is not the same as our scenario. While Multi-Regional Storage buckets are OK for this requirement, you are also paying extra for the additional features which are not needed. So, we might as well go with Regional buckets to keep costs minimal. Ref: https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations#considerations
AdityaGupta
👍 3
Each question from case study should be read with entirety of case study presented. I think C is correct answer, because Multi-Regional Buckets will give you geo-redundant storage to server global customers which will also improve your reliability and minimize your data transfer time.
f0x
👍 4
I'm going with D. Question states, "The current FTP process is error-prone and restarts the data transfer from the start of the file when connections fail, which happens often. You want to improve the reliability of the solution and minimize data transfer time on the cellular connections." https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations "Use a region to help optimize latency and network bandwidth for data consumers, such as analytics pipelines, that are grouped in the same region." Plus, the next question reads, "... its telemetry data is stored in a Google Cloud Storage (GCS) regional bucket (US, Europe, or Asia)"
andras
👍 3
For resumable uploads, the resumable session should stay in the region in which it was created. Doing so reduces cross-region traffic that arises when reading and writing the session state, improving resumable upload performance. Answer is D.
akhadar2001
👍 1
correct answer is D.
VinaySinghal
👍 1
Why to change the solution when the question is asking improving the reliability of the solution. Answer should be from A or B. Between A & B -> B is better.
kimberjdaw
👍 1
Your only job as an architect is to change a solution. It may be A or B on an engineer exam, but your job is to change the solution based on the new requirements. You increase reliability by tweaking or replacing components of a solution.
thecheops
👍 2
It's D. The next question states as much "TerramEarth's 20 million vehicles are scattered around the world. Based on the vehicle's location, its telemetry data is stored in a Google Cloud Storage (GCS) regional bucket (US, Europe, or Asia). "
richardxyz
👍 3
D is correct; C is to directly transfer the files to 3 different Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage bucket locations in US, EU, and Asia
bnlcnd
👍 1
good catch. we are in a English test now. LOL. I change my mind from D to C. just because of the wording. IN real life, I will use correct "C" - a multi regional bucket. speed-wise not much difference compared to regional bucket. and it provides better reliability. costly but that's not the requirement.
jespinosar
👍 3
Multi-regional offers 2 main advantages: Resilience (availability) Low latency Even if we consider the US, if we use a regional bucket we'll face latency issues from cost to cost. Regional should only be used according to Google's doc in 2 cases 1) all your clients are in that region 2) Cost optimization So, C) is the right answer.
Jphix
👍 5
Agreed. C. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations Regional = reduced latency for data consumers, such as in analytics pipelines (Exactly the scenario here) Multi-Regional = for when data consumer are outside of the Google network and distributed across large geographic areas. No indication that that the data consumers themselves are distributed across a large geographic area, just in two different spots in the US. The business requirements state that they want to "Expand beyond a single data center to decrease latency to the American Midwest and East Coast specifically."
Ani26
👍 1
Refer the next question to see why multi regional is correct.. Answer is C
Pupina
👍 2
If i read the next question, talks about regional bucket (answer d) not multi-regional bucket (answer c). What do you say is C? Not understand. I go with D
cetanx
👍 1
A regional bucket in each continental area is less costly, https upload with gzip encoding will dramatically reduce the time of upload given that decompression will be performed by GCS automatically hence reduced transfer times and traffic overhead. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/transcoding Answer should be "D"
Khannas
👍 1
Go for D
mlantonis
👍 3
Since the vehicles are spread all over the world and since later retrieving data is from centralized location, saving data to nearest regional bucket instead of mulit-regional bucket in a large geographic area and retrieve from there is a better solution to minimize data transfer on the cellular connections. D is the correct answer.
syu31svc
👍 1
Answer is C; refer to this link --> https://cloud.google.com/dataproc/docs/concepts/regional-endpoints
pranshu_sharma
👍 2
HTTP API based resumable uploads should be preferred over FTP https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/performing-resumable-uploads
bnlcnd
👍 1
it seems that the resumable upload should stay with same region. so, there is no need to use the multi regional bucket. Go with D
ru1
👍 3
" You want to improve the reliability of the solution" not replace the solution with http. The answer seems B
medchiheb
👍 3
D is correct: becuase C mentions " to different Google Cloud Multi-Regional Storage" which does not make sense! why replacating to different bucket while using Multi-Regional.
Giuspe
👍 1
I agree with this comment, D is the right answer
Ziegler
👍 1
B is the correct answer for me. This will still use a FTP solution but optimised.
jayaen
👍 1
question says "improve the reliability of the solution" and option B does improve the solution
AD2AD4
👍 5
Should we not emphasis on the FTP process error prone to fail. As if FTP is failing it would not be able to put data on GCS as well thus my thought process is getting inclined towards option B.
Yahowmy
👍 2
gsutil with resumeable uploads would resolve this issue of weak cellular connection and will not restart the upload completely. Only supported with Cloud Storage.
Gobblegobble
👍 1
There is nothing called container engine only kubernetes engine
arunsvoice
👍 2
Yes , i think so, FTP has more emphasis on data transfer, should be reliable.
blabok
👍 1
It's C. If it were D, how would you find out which bucket region is best? Ping the client? Put a load balancer in front of Storage? https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations > Use a region to help optimize latency and network bandwidth for data consumers, such as analytics pipelines, that are grouped in the same region. We are not doing that. The clients are outside of Google Cloud.
ankit89
👍 1
Ans is D. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations, Generally, you should store your data in a location that is convenient or contains the majority of the users of your data.
Zarmi
👍 3
You need to improve the reliability. That's mean you need to use Multi-Region. Answer C
nrajesh
👍 2
c and d both are correct. Storage in bucket is temporary so D is best as data will be moved. In the case of a regional data center, failure service will be interrupted. Keeping reliability in mind it should be C .
Ayzen
👍 1
Although C and D are quite similar there is a difference: with multi-region you get geo-redundancy, which is not something that is required here.
fraloca
👍 2
in this question we want improve the reliability, so a geo-redundancy is a solution for single zone failure.
Navin
👍 2
C is correct From scenario: They currently have over 500 dealers and service centers in 100 countries. Multi-Regional Storage is appropriate for storing data that is frequently accessed ("hot" objects), such as serving website content, interactive workloads, or data supporting mobile and gaming applications. Multi-Regional Storage data has the most availability compared to other storage classes. Multi-Regional Storage is geo-redundant, which means Cloud Storage stores your data redundantly in at least two geographic places separated by at least 100 miles within the multi-regional location of the bucket. Geo-redundancy occurs asynchronously, but Multi-Regional Storage data is redundant within at least one geographic place as soon as you upload it. Like all Cloud Storage data, it is also immediately accessible worldwide. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/storage-classes#multi-regional
Smart
👍 4
I think C is more appropriate from performance perspective; while D is appropriate from cost perspective. For instance, setting up a Regional bucket on US East Coast will not 'dramatically' help uploads from West cost. In this scenario, not only there is a global presence but also a wide-spread distribution (across 100 countries). Additionally, we need to minimize transfer time. ("Use a multi-region when you want to serve content to data consumers that are outside of the Google network and distributed across large geographic areas, or when you want the higher availability that comes with being geo-redundant.")
natpilot
👍 1
C is correct - multiregion have 3 global point, EU, Europe and Asia
JJu
👍 18
I think answer is C. Use a multi-region when you want to serve content to data consumers that are outside of the Google network and distributed across large geographic areas, or when you want the higher availability that comes with being geo-redundant.
chiar
👍 3
It's D, because if you want to reduce latency , you should use regional cloud storage https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/locations
dabrat
👍 42
c) Multi-Region Name Multi-Region Description asia Data centers in Asia eu Data centers in the European Union1 us Data centers in the United States multi-region is a large geographic area, such as the United States, that contains two or more geographic places.
JoeShmoe
👍 3
D is correct, its global access with low latency required so multi regional buckets (with edge locations) is preferred
shiwenupper
👍 1
correct, should use regional buckets, since multi-region is for external GCP.
KouShikyou
👍 2
Thanks a lot. Understand.
MeasService
👍 4
D is realisting. Data in gsc will be only for staging. once moved it is not needed hence regional storage.
tartar
👍 8
C is ok
KouShikyou
👍 4
I thought correct answer is C. Is it possible to explain why D is selected?
nitinz
👍 1
You are right correct answer is C
mister
👍 16
D is correct. multi-regional is for external
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Option D is correct because the primary goal is to speed up data retrieval and minimize transfer time on cellular connections. According to Google Cloud documentation, Regional buckets offer significantly higher network bandwidth (up to 200 Gbps per region) compared to Multi-Regional buckets (50 Gbps per region). Furthermore, uploading to a single regional bucket reduces the overhead associated with replicating data across multiple geographic regions during the write phase, thereby minimizing latency and improving reliability for the initial upload.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Options A and B are incorrect because they propose using FTP servers hosted on Container Engine clusters. This introduces unnecessary complexity, management overhead, and potential points of failure compared to directly uploading to Cloud Storage via APIs. Option C is incorrect because while Multi-Regional buckets provide high availability, they incur higher latency during writes due to cross-region replication and have lower aggregate throughput limits per region, which contradicts the requirement to minimize data transfer time.Community Comment Notes
Several community members correctly identified D by referencing official Google Cloud recommendations that distinguish between content serving and analytics use cases. As user n_nana noted, "multi-region is good for content serving and not analytics." User Kulwant85 highlighted the bandwidth difference, stating "Regional: 200 Gbps... Multi-regional: 50 Gbps," which supports the choice for faster transfers. User hems4all also emphasized that Multi-Regional is for external content serving, not internal ETL pipelines.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
Always align your storage choice with the specific workload pattern. For 'ingest and analyze' or ETL workflows where low-latency writes and high throughput are critical, prefer Regional buckets. Reserve Multi-Regional buckets for scenarios requiring low-latency reads from globally distributed users.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why not use Multi-Regional buckets for higher availability?
While Multi-Regional offers higher availability, it has lower write throughput limits and higher write latency due to cross-region replication. For ETL ingestion, speed and reliability of the initial upload are prioritized, making Regional buckets the better fit.
Is FTP ever recommended for cloud data ingestion?
No. Directly uploading to Cloud Storage via HTTPS APIs is more secure, scalable, and reliable than hosting custom FTP servers on VMs, which adds management overhead and potential single points of failure.
Related Analysis
Practice All PCA Questions
Access 81 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full PCA Practice Test →