NTC 302 Week 2 cloud migration resiliency
NTC 302 Week 2 cloud migration resiliency
Last week, you discussed GIG, Inc.’s benefits and concerns with moving to the cloud.
This week, you will create a high-level diagram in Microsoft® Visio® of the resilient aspects of the system provided by AWS. The diagram should cover the system architecture in the AWS environment. Specific AWS (e.g., AWS Availability Zones, Elastic Load Balancing, Amazon CloudFront, etc.) that will provide reliability, availability, and continuity across the migrated environment need to be included. Also, ensure you include the following:
• Costs
• Specific AWS
• Connectivity across multiple availability zones
• At least one AWS that will support your design for fault tolerance (if one system were to fail)
Submit your diagram.
he weekly case study discussion is worth up to 135 points. Students are expected to participate a minimum of four times (once in Part One by Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, once in Part Two by Thursday, 11:59 p.m. MT, once in Part Three by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT, and one post to a student peer as required in the interactive dialogue criterion).
Grading Rubric
CriteriaExceptionalOutstanding or highest level of performanceExceedsVery good or high level of performanceMeetsSatisfactory level of performanceNeeds ImprovementsPoor or failing level of performanceDevelopingUnsatisfactory level of performance Total Points Possible= 135 40 Points 35 Points32 Points 15 Points 0 PointsApplication of Course KnowledgeStudent fully answers discussion questions in Parts One, Two, and Three which contribute unique perspectives and insights, and are applicable to the discussion/case presentation. Student fully answers discussion questions in Parts One, Two, and Three which contribute unique perspectives and insights, but may be lacking some applicability to the discussion/case presentation. Student fully answers discussion questions in Parts One, Two, and Three but some responses have limited perspectives and insights, and have limited application to discussion/case presentation, or only two of the three posts have been fully answered.
Student fully answers discussion questions in Parts One, Two, and Three but posts are not consistent with current practice, or only one post has been fully answered. Student does not fully answer discussion questions in all of the parts or responses offer neither insight,nor application to discussion/case presentation. 40 Points 35 Points32 Points 15 Points 0 PointsSupport from Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)All three discussion posts are supported from appropriate sources which are: 1) evidence- based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years *, and; 4) in-text citations and full references are provided. All three discussion posts are from appropriate sources which are: 1) evidence- based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years *, and; 4) in-text citations and full references are provided.
However, evidence-based, peer reviewed journal articles that are cited may not fully support the discussion in any one area.
Two of the three discussion posts are supported from appropriate sources which are: 1) evidence- based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years *, and; 4) in-text citations and full references are provided.Only one of the discussion posts are supported from appropriate sources which are: 1) scholarly in nature, 2) published within the last 5 years, and; 3) in-text citations and full references are provided.Discussion posts One, Two, and Three contain no evidence- based practice references or citations.
*Students should note that factitious sources, sources that are clearly not read by the student and used, or sources that have incorrect dates will result in an automatic ZERO for this section for the week. 10 Points9 Points8 Points 4 Points 0 PointsOrganizationDiscussion posts One, Two, and Three present case study findings in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Discussion posts One, Two, and Three present case study findings which are sometimes unclear to follow. Discussion posts present case findings in a logical and understandable method but one of the discussion parts contain a significant error.Discussion posts are sometimes unclear to follow and/or there are significant errors in two discussion parts.
Discussion posts are not presented in a logical, understandable sequence and/or there are significant errors in ALL THREE discussion parts.
40 Points 35 Points 32 Points15 Points 0 PointsInteractive DialoguePresents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one topic-related post of a peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted in parts one, two and three.
A substantive post adds content or insights to the discussion and is supported by references and citations as appropriate.
Presents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one topic-related post of a peer. Does include evidence from appropriate sources.
Responds to some direct faculty questions posted in parts one, two and three.
A substantive post adds content or insights to the discussion and is supported by references and citations as appropriate. Responds to a student peer and/or faculty questions but the posts adds limited content or insights to the discussion.
Does include evidence from appropriate sources
Responds to a student peer and/or faculty, but the nature of the response is not substantial.
Does not include evidence from any resources.
Does not respond to a topic-related peer post and/or does not respond to faculty questions by Sunday. 5 Points 4 Points 3 Points 2 Points 0 Points Grammar, Syntax, APAAPA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate, or with zero to one errors. Two to four errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. Five to seven errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. Eight to nine errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. Post contains greater than ten errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation or repeatedly makes the same errors after faculty feedback. 0 Points Deducted 10% Deduction per Day for Late Discussion Post 33 Points Deducted per Omitted/Late Discussion PartParticipationEnters first post to Part One by 11:59 p.m. MT on Tuesday; first post to Part Two by 11:59 p.m. MT on Thursday; and posts Part Three and peer response by Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT.
Ten percent (10%) per day for each late discussion post.*See Calculating Late Posting Penalty Document
Written submissions will not be accepted after Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT of the week they are due.Thirty three (33) points deducted per part if Part 1, Part 2 or 3 is/are not submitted by Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT of the week they are due
* Refer to “What is a Scholarly Source” and “Reference Guide for FNP Case Studies” in the “Course Resources” section
