Amazon SAA-C03 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 73

Understanding the Requirement: The company wants to migrate an application to AWS, increase its availability, and use AWS WAF in the architecture.

Analysis of Options:

Auto Scaling group with ALB and WAF: This option provides high availability by distributing instances across multiple Availability Zones. The ALB ensures even traffic distribution, and AWS WAF provides security at the application layer.

Cluster placement group with ALB and WAF: Cluster placement groups are for low-latency networking within a single AZ, which does not provide the high availability across AZs.

Two EC2 instances with ALB and WAF: This setup provides some availability but does not scale automatically, missing the benefits of an Auto Scaling group.

Auto Scaling group with WAF directly: AWS WAF cannot be directly connected to an Auto Scaling group; it needs to be attached to an ALB, CloudFront distribution, or API Gateway.

Best Solution:

Auto Scaling group with ALB and WAF: This configuration ensures high availability, scalability, and security, meeting all the requirements effectively.

Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling

Application Load Balancer

AWS WAF

Understanding the Requirement: The application is stateful and requires at least two EC2 instances to be running at all times, with a highly available and fault-tolerant architecture.

Analysis of Options:

Minimum capacity of two with instances in separate AZs: Ensures high availability by distributing instances across multiple AZs, fulfilling the requirement of always having two instances running.

Minimum capacity of four: Provides redundancy but is more than what is required and increases cost without additional benefit.

Spot Instances: Not suitable for a stateful application requiring guaranteed availability, as Spot Instances can be terminated at any time.

Combination of On-Demand and Spot Instances: Mixing instance types might provide cost savings but does not ensure the required availability for a stateful application.

Best Solution:

Minimum capacity of two with instances in separate AZs: This setup ensures high availability and meets the requirement with the least cost and complexity.

Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling

High Availability for Amazon EC2

Understanding the Requirement: The company wants to restrict each application to its specific prefix in an S3 bucket and have granular control over the objects under each prefix.

Analysis of Options:

Dedicated S3 Access Points: Provides a scalable and flexible way to manage access to S3 buckets, allowing specific policies to be attached to each access point, thereby controlling access at the prefix level.

S3 Batch Operations: Suitable for large-scale changes but involves more operational overhead and does not dynamically control future access.

Replication to new S3 buckets: Involves unnecessary duplication of data and increased storage costs, and operational overhead for managing multiple buckets.

Combination of replication and access points: Adds unnecessary complexity and overhead compared to using access points directly.

Best Solution:

Dedicated S3 Access Points: This provides the least operational overhead while meeting the requirements for prefix-level access control and granular management.

Amazon S3 Access Points

Understanding the Requirement: The company wants to cost-optimize their workload that uses EC2, Lambda, Fargate, and SageMaker, covering the most services with the fewest savings plans.

Analysis of Options:

EC2 Instance Savings Plan: Limited to EC2 and SageMaker, missing coverage for Lambda and Fargate.

Compute Savings Plan: Provides the most flexibility, covering a broad range of compute services, including EC2, Lambda, Fargate, and SageMaker.

SageMaker Savings Plan: Specifically for SageMaker, missing coverage for EC2, Lambda, and Fargate.

Combination of plans: The Compute Savings Plan is versatile and can be combined to cover different services efficiently.

Best Solution:

Compute Savings Plan for EC2, Lambda, and SageMaker: Covers the primary compute services efficiently.

Compute Savings Plan for Lambda, Fargate, and EC2: Covers the remaining services, ensuring broad coverage with minimal plans.

AWS Savings Plans

Compute Savings Plans

Understanding the Requirement: The order processing system requires multiple independent validation steps, each handled by separate Lambda functions, with each function accessing only the subset of order information it needs. The system should be loosely coupled to accommodate future changes.

Analysis of Options:

Amazon SQS with a new Lambda function for transformation: This involves additional complexity in creating and managing multiple SQS queues and an extra Lambda function for data transformation.

Amazon SNS with message filtering: While SNS supports message filtering, it is more suited for pub/sub messaging patterns rather than event-driven processing requiring fine-grained control over the data sent to each function.

Amazon EventBridge with input transformers: EventBridge is designed for event-driven architectures, allowing for fine-grained control with input transformers that can modify and filter the event data sent to each target Lambda function, ensuring each function receives only the necessary information.

SQS with synchronous Lambda invocations: This approach adds unnecessary complexity with synchronous invocations and is not ideal for an event-driven, loosely coupled architecture.

Best Solution:

Amazon EventBridge with input transformers: This option provides the most flexible, scalable, and loosely coupled architecture, enabling each Lambda function to receive only the required subset of data.

Amazon EventBridge

EventBridge Input Transformer

Understanding the Requirement: The university wants to centralize management and automate backups for its AWS services (EC2, RDS, and DynamoDB), reducing reliance on custom scripts.

Analysis of Options:

Third-party backup software with AWS Storage Gateway: This solution introduces external dependencies and adds complexity compared to using native AWS services.

AWS Backup: Provides a centralized, fully managed service to automate and manage backups across various AWS services, including EC2, RDS, and DynamoDB.

AWS Config: Primarily used for compliance and configuration monitoring, not for backup management.

AWS Systems Manager State Manager: Useful for configuration management but not specifically designed for managing backups.

Best Solution:

AWS Backup: This service offers the necessary functionality to centralize and automate backups, providing a streamlined and integrated solution with minimal effort.

AWS Backup

Understanding the Requirement: The data science team needs to securely share selective data with the engineering team across multiple AWS accounts with minimal operational overhead.

Analysis of Options:

Copy data to a common account: Involves data duplication and increased storage costs, and requires managing additional permissions.

Lake Formation permissions Grant command: This method can be effective but may involve significant operational overhead if managing permissions across multiple accounts and datasets manually.

AWS Data Exchange: Designed for sharing data externally or between organizations, which adds unnecessary complexity for internal sharing within the same organization.

Lake Formation tag-based access control: Provides a scalable and efficient way to manage access permissions based on tags, allowing fine-grained control and simplified management across accounts.

Best Solution:

Lake Formation tag-based access control: This solution meets the requirements with the least operational overhead, allowing efficient management of cross-account permissions and secure data sharing.

AWS Lake Formation

Tag-based access control

Understanding the Requirement: The company needs to control the creation, rotation, and disabling of encryption keys for data stored in S3 with minimal effort.

Analysis of Options:

SSE-S3: Provides server-side encryption using S3 managed keys but does not offer full control over key management.

Customer managed key with AWS KMS (SSE-KMS): Allows the company to fully control key creation, rotation, and disabling, providing a high level of security and compliance.

AWS managed key with AWS KMS (SSE-KMS): While it provides some control, it does not offer the same level of granularity as customer-managed keys.

EC2 instance encryption and re-upload: This approach is operationally intensive and does not leverage AWS managed services for efficient key management.

Best Solution:

Customer managed key with AWS KMS (SSE-KMS): This solution meets the requirement for full control over encryption keys with minimal operational overhead, leveraging AWS managed services for secure key management.

AWS Key Management Service (KMS)

Amazon S3 Encryption

Understanding the Requirement: The company wants to optimize costs and reduce operational overhead for an RDS for PostgreSQL database that only needs to be active during business hours on weekdays.

Analysis of Options:

Instance Scheduler on AWS: Allows for automated start and stop schedules based on specified times, ideal for resources only needed during certain hours. This directly optimizes costs by running the database only when needed.

Turn off automatic backups and create weekly snapshots: Does not address the requirement of reducing operational overhead and optimizing runtime costs.

Custom Lambda function: This could work but adds unnecessary complexity compared to using the Instance Scheduler.

All Upfront Reserved DB Instances: While this reduces costs, it does not optimize for usage patterns that require the database only during specific hours.

Best Solution:

Instance Scheduler on AWS: This option effectively manages the database runtime based on the specified schedule, reducing costs and operational overhead.

Instance Scheduler on AWS