Amazon SAA-C03 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 84

For an application requiring TCP communication and high availability:

Network Load Balancer (NLB) is the best choice for load balancing TCP traffic because it is designed for handling high-throughput, low-latency connections.

Auto Scaling group ensures that the application can automatically scale based on demand, adding or removing EC2 instances as needed, which is crucial for handling user growth.

Option C (Application Load Balancer): ALB is primarily for HTTP/HTTPS traffic, not ideal for TCP.

Option D (Manual scaling): Manually adding instances does not provide the automation or scalability required.

Option E (Gateway Load Balancer): GLB is used for third-party virtual appliances, not for direct application load balancing.

AWS

Reference:

Network Load Balancer

Auto Scaling Group

AWS CloudTrail Lake is a fully managed service that allows the collection, storage, and querying of CloudTrail events for both AWS and non-AWS services. CloudTrail Lake can be customized to collect logs from various sources, ensuring a centralized audit solution. It also supports long-term storage, so logs can be retained for 7 years, meeting the compliance requirement.

Option A (Data Lake): Setting up a data lake in S3 introduces unnecessary operational complexity compared to CloudTrail Lake.

Option C (Ingest non-AWS services into CloudTrail): CloudTrail Lake is better suited for this task with less operational overhead.

Option D (CloudWatch Logs): While CloudWatch can store logs, CloudTrail Lake is specifically designed for API auditing and storage.

AWS

Reference:

AWS CloudTrail Lake

Given the large size (180 TB) of the database and the time constraint, AWS Snowball Edge Storage Optimized is the best solution. Snowball Edge allows for the physical transfer of large datasets to AWS efficiently without relying on slow internet connections. AWS DMS and SCT can be used to perform ongoing replication of any changes made during the migration, ensuring minimal downtime.

Option B (VPN): Using a 100 Mbps internet connection would take far too long to transfer 180 TB.

Option C (Direct Connect): Establishing a 10 Gbps Direct Connect link might not be feasible within the 2-week timeframe.

Option D (DataSync over internet): With the existing internet connection, DataSync would also take too long.

AWS

Reference:

AWS Snowball Edge

AWS DMS

To run RDS instances only during business hours with the least operational overhead, you can use Amazon EventBridge to schedule events that invoke AWS Lambda functions. The Lambda functions can be configured to start and stop the RDS instances based on the specified schedule (business hours). EventBridge rules allow you to define recurring events easily, and Lambda functions provide a serverless way to manage RDS instance start and stop operations, reducing administrative overhead.

Option A: While CloudWatch alarms could be used, they are more suited for monitoring, and using Lambda with EventBridge is simpler.

Option B (Trusted Advisor): Trusted Advisor is not ideal for scheduling tasks.

Option C (Systems Manager): Systems Manager could also work, but EventBridge and Lambda offer a more streamlined and lower-overhead solution.

AWS

Reference:

Amazon EventBridge Scheduler

AWS Lambda

Amazon FSx for Lustre is the ideal solution for high-performance computing (HPC) workloads that require parallel access to a shared file system with low latency. FSx for Lustre is designed specifically to meet the needs of such workloads, offering sub-millisecond latencies, which makes it well-suited for the 1 ms latency requirement mentioned in the question.

Here is why FSx for Lustre is the best fit:

Parallel File System: FSx for Lustre is a parallel file system that can scale across hundreds of Amazon EC2 instances, providing high throughput and low-latency access to data. It is optimized for processing large datasets in parallel, which is essential for HPC workloads.

Low Latency: FSx for Lustre is capable of providing access latencies well within 1 ms, making it ideal for performance-sensitive workloads like HPC.

Seamless Integration with Amazon S3: FSx for Lustre can be linked to an Amazon S3 bucket. This integration allows data to be imported from S3 into FSx for Lustre before the workload begins and exported back to S3 after processing. This feature is crucial for manual postprocessing because it enables engineers to access the dataset in S3 after processing.

Performance: FSx for Lustre is built for workloads that require high performance, such as machine learning, analytics, media processing, and financial simulations, which are typical for HPC environments.

In contrast:

Amazon EFS (Option A): While EFS provides shared file storage and scales across multiple EC2 instances, it does not offer the same level of performance or sub-millisecond latencies as FSx for Lustre. EFS is more suited for general-purpose workloads, not high-performance computing.

Mounting S3 as a file system (Option B and D): S3 is object storage, not a file system designed for low-latency access and parallel processing. Mounting S3 buckets directly or using AWS Resource Access Manager to share the bucket would not meet the low-latency (1 ms) or performance requirements needed for HPC workloads.

Therefore, Amazon FSx for Lustre (Option C) is the most appropriate and verified solution for this scenario.

AWS

Reference:

Amazon FSx for Lustre

Best Practices for High Performance Computing (HPC)

Amazon FSx and Amazon S3 Integration

The issue described in the question, where incoming traffic seems to favor one EC2 instance, is often caused by session affinity (also known as sticky sessions) being enabled on the Application Load Balancer (ALB). When session affinity is enabled, the ALB routes requests from the same client to the same EC2 instance. This can cause an imbalance in traffic distribution, leading to performance bottlenecks on certain instances while others remain underutilized.

To resolve this issue, disabling session affinity ensures that the ALB distributes incoming traffic evenly across all EC2 instances, allowing better load distribution and reducing latency. The ALB will rely on its round-robin or least outstanding requests algorithm (depending on the configuration) to distribute traffic more evenly across instances.

Option B (Network Load Balancer): The NLB is designed for Layer 4 (TCP) traffic and low latency use cases, but it is not needed here as the problem is with load balancing logic at the application layer (Layer 7). The ALB is more appropriate for HTTP/HTTPS traffic.

Option C (Increase EC2 Instances): Adding more EC2 instances does not solve the root issue of uneven traffic distribution.

Option D (Health Check Frequency): Adjusting health check frequency won't address the imbalance caused by session affinity.

AWS

Reference:

Application Load Balancer Sticky Sessions

To analyze the performance of the web application with granularity of no more than 2 minutes, enabling detailed monitoring on EC2 instances is the best solution. By default, CloudWatch provides metrics at a 5-minute interval. Enabling detailed monitoring allows you to collect metrics at 1-minute intervals, which will give you the level of granularity you need to analyze performance during peak traffic.

Amazon CloudWatch metrics can then be used to analyze CPU utilization, memory usage, disk I/O, and network throughput, among other performance-related metrics, at the desired granularity.

Option A: Sending CloudWatch logs to Redshift for analysis is unnecessary and overcomplicated for simple performance analysis, which can be done using CloudWatch metrics alone.

Option C: Fetching EC2 logs via Lambda adds complexity, and CloudWatch metrics already provide the required data for performance analysis.

Option D: Sending logs to S3 and using Redshift for analysis is also more complex than necessary for simple performance monitoring.

AWS

Reference:

Monitoring Amazon EC2 with CloudWatch

Amazon CloudWatch Detailed Monitoring

AWS Compute Optimizer provides detailed recommendations for optimizing Amazon EBS volumes, including insights into underutilized volumes, inefficient configurations, and potential cost savings. It analyzes usage patterns and provides recommendations based on historical data, making it the ideal tool for this use case.

Option A (Amazon Inspector): Amazon Inspector is for security assessments, not for cost optimization.

Option B (Systems Manager): Systems Manager does not specifically provide EBS optimization recommendations.

Option C (CloudWatch): CloudWatch metrics help monitor usage but do not offer optimization recommendations like Compute Optimizer.

AWS

Reference:

AWS Compute Optimizer

To process each form exactly once and ensure no data is lost, using an Amazon SQS FIFO (First-In-First-Out) queue is the most appropriate solution. SQS FIFO queues guarantee that messages are processed in the exact order they are sent and ensure that each message is processed exactly once. This ensures data consistency and reliability, both of which are crucial for processing user-submitted forms without data loss.

SQS acts as a buffer between the web application server and the worker tier, ensuring that submitted forms are stored reliably and forwarded to the worker tier for processing. This also decouples the application, improving its scalability and resilience.

Option B (API Gateway): API Gateway is better suited for API management rather than acting as a message queue for form processing.

Option C (SQS Standard Queue): While SQS Standard queues offer high throughput, they do not guarantee exactly-once processing or the strict ordering needed for this use case.

Option D (Step Functions): Step Functions are useful for orchestrating workflows but add unnecessary complexity for simple message queuing and form processing.

AWS

Reference:

Amazon SQS FIFO Queues