SAA-C03 Exam Dumps - Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Associate Questions and Answers

This solution meets the requirements most cost-effectively because it enables the company to migrate its on-premises NFS data store to AWS without changing the existing applications or workflows. AWS Storage Gateway is a hybrid cloud storage service that provides seamless and secure integration between on-premises and AWS storage. Amazon S3 File Gateway is a type of AWS Storage Gateway that provides a file interface to Amazon S3, with local caching for low-latency access. By setting up an Amazon S3 File Gateway, the company can store and retrieve files as objects in Amazon S3 using standard file protocols such as NFS. The company can also use an Amazon S3 Lifecycle policy to automatically transition the data to the appropriate storage class based on the frequency of access and the cost of storage. For example, the company can use S3 Standard for frequently accessed data, S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) or S3 One Zone-Infrequent Access (S3 One Zone-IA) for less frequently accessed data, and S3 Glacier or S3 Glacier Deep Archive for long-term archival data.

Option A is not a valid solution because AWS Storage Gateway Volume Gateway is a type of AWS Storage Gateway that provides a block interface to Amazon S3, with local caching for low-latency access. Volume Gateway is not suitable for migrating an NFS data store, as it requires attaching the volumes to EC2 instances or on-premises servers using the iSCSI protocol. Option C is not a valid solution because Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) is a fully managed elastic NFS file system that is designed for workloads that require high availability, scalability, and performance. Amazon EFS Standard-Infrequent Access (Standard-IA) is a storage class within Amazon EFS that is optimized for infrequently accessed files, with a lower price per GB and a higher price per access. Using Amazon EFS Standard-IA for migrating an NFS data store would not be cost-effective, as it would incur higher access charges and require additional configuration to enable lifecycle management. Option D is not a valid solution because Amazon EFS One Zone-Infrequent Access (One Zone-IA) is a storage class within Amazon EFS that isoptimized for infrequently accessed files that do not require the availability and durability of Amazon EFS Standard or Standard-IA. Amazon EFS One Zone-IA stores data in a single Availability Zone, which reduces the cost by 47% compared to Amazon EFS Standard-IA, but also increases the risk of data loss in the event of an Availability Zone failure. Using Amazon EFS One Zone-IA for migrating an NFS data store would not be cost-effective, as it would incur higher access charges and require additional configuration to enable lifecycle management. It would also compromise the availability and durability of the data.

Understanding the Requirement: The robotics company needs a public load balancer to ensure seamless communication with backend services, route traffic based on query strings, and encrypt traffic.

Analysis of Options:

Network Load Balancer with ACM Certificate: NLBs primarily operate at the transport layer (Layer 4) and do not natively support query parameter-based routing, which is a Layer 7 feature.

Gateway Load Balancer with IAM Certificate: Gateway Load Balancers are designed for deploying, scaling, and managing third-party virtual appliances and do not support HTTP path-based or query parameter-based routing.

Application Load Balancer with ACM Certificate: ALBs operate at the application layer (Layer 7), supporting features like query parameter-based routing and SSL/TLS termination with ACM certificates.

Network Load Balancer with IAM Certificate: As with the first option, NLBs do not support query parameter-based routing, making it unsuitable for this requirement.

Best Solution:

Application Load Balancer with ACM Certificate: This option provides the necessary Layer 7 routing capabilities and SSL/TLS termination to meet the requirements for query parameter-based routing and encrypted communication.

Understanding the Requirement: The company needs to map its IT infrastructure to identify and enforce security policies, with the ability to quickly query and identify security risks.

Analysis of Options:

Amazon RDS: While suitable for relational data, it is not optimized for handling complex relationships and querying those relationships, which is essential for an IT infrastructure map.

Amazon Neptune: A graph database service designed for handling highly connected data. It uses SPARQL to query graph data efficiently, making it ideal for mapping IT infrastructure and identifying relationships that pose security risks.

Amazon Redshift: A data warehouse solution optimized for complex queries on large datasets but not specifically for graph data.

Amazon DynamoDB: A NoSQL database that uses PartiQL for querying, but it is not optimized for complex relationships in graph data.

Best Option for Mapping and Querying IT Infrastructure:

Amazon Neptune provides the most suitable solution with the least operational overhead. It is purpose-built for graph data and enables efficient querying of complex relationships to identify security risks.

Requirement Analysis: The application was overwhelmed with unexpected data volume, leading to data loss and the need for a replay mechanism.

Amazon SQS Overview: SQS is a fully managed message queuing service that decouples and scales microservices, distributed systems, and serverless applications.

Data Decoupling: By using an SQS queue, the application can store incoming tracker data reliably and process it asynchronously, preventing data loss.

Implementation:

Create an SQS queue.

Modify the web application to send incoming data to the SQS queue.

Configure the application instances to poll the SQS queue and process the messages.

Conclusion: This solution meets the requirements with minimal operational overhead, ensuring data is not lost and can be processed at the application’s own pace.

References

Amazon SQS:Amazon SQS Documentation

Understanding the Requirement: The application needs to write to multiple block storage volumes in multiple EC2 Nitro-based instances simultaneously to achieve higher availability.

Analysis of Options:

General Purpose SSD (gp3) with Multi-Attach: Supports Multi-Attach but does not provide the highest performance required for critical applications.

Throughput Optimized HDD (st1) with Multi-Attach: Not suitable for applications requiring high performance and low latency.

Provisioned IOPS SSD (io2) with Multi-Attach: Provides high performance and durability, suitable for applications requiring simultaneous writes and high availability.

General Purpose SSD (gp2) with Multi-Attach: Similar to gp3 but with less flexibility and performance.

Best Solution:

Provisioned IOPS SSD (io2) with Multi-Attach: This solution ensures the highest performance and availability for the application by allowing multiple EC2 instances to attach to and write to the same EBS volume simultaneously.

Understanding the Requirement: The application running on EC2 instances in private subnets needs frequent access to large confidential files stored in S3, minimizing data transfer costs.

Analysis of Options:

Gateway Endpoint for S3: Provides a secure, scalable, and cost-effective way for instances in private subnets to access S3 without using the internet or NAT gateways, thus minimizing data transfer costs.

Single NAT Gateway: Incurs additional costs for data transfer through the NAT gateway, which is not cost-effective.

PrivateLink Interface Endpoint for S3: Primarily used for accessing AWS services over a private connection but is more complex and costly compared to a gateway endpoint for S3.

Multiple NAT Gateways: Increases costs significantly and adds complexity without offering the cost benefits of a gateway endpoint.

Best Solution:

Gateway Endpoint for S3: This solution provides the required access with the least data transfer costs and minimal complexity.

Understanding the Requirement: The company needs programmatic access to its AWS usage costs for the current year and cost forecasts for the next 12 months, with minimal operational overhead.

Analysis of Options:

AWS Cost Explorer API: Provides programmatic access to detailed usage and cost data, including forecast costs. It supports pagination for handling large datasets, making it an efficient solution.

Downloadable AWS Cost Explorer report csv files: While useful, this method requires manual handling of files and does not provide real-time access.

AWS Budgets actions via FTP: This is less suitable as it involves setting up FTP transfers and does not provide the same level of detail and real-time access as the API.

AWS Budgets reports via SMTP: Similar to FTP, this method involves additional setup and lacks the real-time access and detail provided by the API.

Best Option for Minimal Operational Overhead:

AWS Cost Explorer API provides direct, programmatic access to cost data, including detailed usage and forecasting, with minimal setup and operational effort. It is the most efficient solution for integrating cost data into an operational cost dashboard.

Understanding the Requirement: Developers in the Development account need to push code changes to the Production account, with phased access control for different stages of the project.

Analysis of Options:

Policy Documents in Each Account: This approach increases complexity and is harder to manage compared to role-based access.

IAM Role in Development Account: Roles in the Development account cannot directly control access to resources in the Production account.

IAM Role in Production Account: Creating a role in the Production account with a trust policy that allows the Development account to assume it provides controlled, secure access.

IAM Group in Production Account: This approach does not provide the required cross-account access control.

Best Solution:

IAM Role in the Production Account: This method allows precise control over who can access the Production account from the Development account, with the ability to manage permissions and access levels effectively.

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.

Understanding the Requirement: The company needs to redesign the architecture to be highly available and use AWS managed solutions for hosting a web application with static content, PHP application, and Redis for user sessions.

Analysis of Options:

AWS Elastic Beanstalk: Suitable for simplifying deployment but may not provide the desired flexibility and control for complex architectures.

AWS Lambda and API Gateway: Not ideal for hosting a stateful PHP application and handling static content.Adding complexity without significant benefit.

EC2 instance with ElastiCache and S3: Provides some high availability but involves managing EC2 instances, which increases operational overhead.

CloudFront with S3, ALB, ECS with Fargate, and ElastiCache: This solution leverages fully managed AWS services for each component, ensuring high availability and scalability.

Best Solution:

CloudFront with S3, ALB, ECS with Fargate, and ElastiCache: This combination of services meets the requirements for a highly available and managed solution, ensuring optimal performance and minimal operational overhead.

Understanding the Requirement: EC2 instances need to upload data to S3 without using the public internet, and on-premises servers need to consume this data.

Analysis of Options:

Interface VPC Endpoint for EC2: Not relevant for accessing S3.

Gateway VPC Endpoint for S3 and Direct Connect: Provides private connectivity from EC2 instances to S3 and from on-premises to AWS, ensuring compliance with the requirement to avoid public internet.

Transit Gateway and Site-to-Site VPN: Adds unnecessary complexity and does not provide the same level of performance as Direct Connect.

Proxy EC2 Instances with NAT Gateways: Increases complexity and costs compared to a direct connection using VPC endpoints and Direct Connect.

Best Solution:

Gateway VPC Endpoint for S3 and Direct Connect: This solution ensures secure, private data transfer both within AWS and between on-premises and AWS, meeting the compliance requirements effectively.

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.

Understanding the Requirement: The company needs to collect transaction data in real time, avoid data duplication, and perform additional processing without managing infrastructure.

Analysis of Options:

SQS FIFO Queue with Lambda: Ensures data is processed in order and prevents duplication.Lambda handles processing without the need to manage servers.

SQS FIFO Queue with AWS Batch: While this ensures no duplicates, it introduces additional complexity and management overhead with AWS Batch.

Kinesis Data Streams with AWS Batch and EC2: Involves more components and infrastructure management, which is against the requirement of not wanting to manage infrastructure.

Step Functions with Lambda and EC2: Involves setting up multiple services and still requires managing EC2 instances, increasing complexity.

Best Solution:

SQS FIFO Queue with Lambda: This combination ensures real-time data processing, prevents duplication, and minimizes infrastructure management, meeting all requirements efficiently.

Current Backup Settings: By default, Amazon RDS creates automated backups with a retention period of 7 days.

Regulatory Requirements: The requirement is to retain daily backups for 30 days.

Adjusting Retention Period: You can modify the RDS instance settings to increase the automated backup retention period to 30 days.

Operational Overhead: This solution is the simplest as it leverages existing automated backups and requires minimal intervention.

Implementation: The change can be made via the AWS Management Console, AWS CLI, or AWS SDKs.

References

Amazon RDS Backups:Amazon RDS Documentation

Understanding the Requirement: The job is stateful, cannot tolerate interruptions, and needs to run reliably for at least one hour each week.

Analysis of Options:

AWS Fargate with Amazon ECS and EventBridge: This option provides a serverless compute engine for containers that can run stateful tasks reliably. Using EventBridge Scheduler, the job can be triggered automatically at the specified time without manual intervention.

AWS Lambda with EventBridge: Lambda functions are not suitable for long-running stateful jobs since they have a maximum execution time of 15 minutes.

EC2 Spot Instances: Spot Instances can be interrupted, making them unsuitable for a stateful job that cannot tolerate interruptions.

AWS DataSync: This service is primarily for moving large amounts of data and is not designed to run stateful analysis jobs.

Best Option for Reliable, Scheduled Execution:

The Fargate task on ECS with EventBridge Scheduler meets all requirements, providing the necessary reliability and scheduling capabilities without interruption risks.

This option is the most efficient because it deploys the web tier and the application tier to a second Region, which provides high availability and redundancy for the application. It also uses an Amazon Aurora global database, which is a feature that allows a single Aurora database to span multiple AWS Regions1. It also deploys the database in the primary Region and the second Region, which provides low latency global reads and fast recovery from a Regional outage. It also uses Amazon Route 53 health checks with afailover routing policy to the second Region, which provides data protection by routing traffic to healthy endpoints in different Regions2. It also promotes the secondary to primaryas needed, which provides dataconsistency by allowing write operations in one of the Regions at a time3. This solution meets the requirement of expanding globally and ensuring that its application has minimal downtime. Option A is less efficient because it extends the Auto Scaling groups for the web tier and the application tier to deploy instances in Availability Zones in a second Region, which could incur higher costs and complexity than deploying them separately. It also uses an Aurora global database to deploy the database in the primary Region and the second Region, which is correct. However, it does not use Amazon Route 53 health checks with a failover routing policy to the second Region, which could result in traffic being routed to unhealthy endpoints. Option B is less efficient because it deploys the web tier and the application tier to a second Region, which is correct. It also adds an Aurora PostgreSQL cross-Region Aurora Replica in the second Region, which provides read scalability across Regions. However, it does not use an Aurora global database, which provides faster replication and recovery than cross-Region replicas. It also uses Amazon Route 53 health checks with a failover routing policy to the secondRegion, which is correct. However, it does not promote the secondary to primary as needed, which could result in data inconsistency or loss. Option C is less efficient because it deploys the web tier and the application tier to a second Region, which is correct. It also creates an Aurora PostgreSQL database in the second Region, which provides data redundancy across Regions. However, it does not use an Aurora global database or cross-Region replicas, which provide faster replication and recovery than creating separate databases. It also uses AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) to replicate the primary database to the second Region, which provides data migration between different sources and targets. However, it does not use an Aurora global database or cross-Region replicas, which provide faster replication and recovery than using AWS DMS. It also uses Amazon Route 53 health checks with a failover routing policy to the second Region, which is correct.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/latest/developerguide/key-policy-modifying-external-accounts.html

There's no need to create another custom AWS KMS key. https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/aurora-share-encrypted-snapshot/ Give target account access to the custom AWS KMS key within the source account 1. Log in to the source account, and go to the AWS KMS console in the same Region as the DB cluster snapshot. 2. Select Customer-managed keys from the navigation pane. 3. Select your custom AWS KMS key (ALREADY CREATED) 4. From the Other AWS accounts section, select Add another AWS account, and then enter the AWS account number of your target account. Then: Copy and share the DB cluster snapshot

Configure an EC2 Auto Scaling scheduled scaling policy based on the monthly schedule is the best option because it allows for the proactive scaling of the EC2 instances before the monthly batch run begins. This will ensure that the application is able to handle the increased workload without experiencing downtime. The scheduled scaling policy can be configured to increase the number of instances in the Auto Scaling group a few hours before the batch run and then decrease the number of instances after the batch run is complete. This will ensure that the resources are available when needed and not wasted when not needed. The most appropriate solution to handle the increased workload during the monthly batch run and avoid downtime would be to configure an EC2 Auto Scaling scheduled scaling policy based on the monthly schedule.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/autoscaling/ec2/userguide/ec2-auto-scaling-scheduled-scaling.html

This option is the most efficient because it uses aMulti-AZ deployment for the DB instance, which provides enhanced availability and durability for RDS database instances by automatically replicating the data to a standby instance in a different AvailabilityZone1. It also provides a recovery point objective (RPO) of less than 1 second for all its production databases, as the standby instance is kept in sync with the primary instanceusing synchronous physical replication2. This solution meets the requirement of requiring a RPO of less than 1 second for all its production databases. Option B is less efficientbecause it uses auto scaling for the DB instance in one Availability Zone, which is a way to automatically adjust the compute capacity of your DB instance based on load or a schedule3. However, this does not provide a RPO of lessthan 1 second for all its production databases, as it does not replicate the data to another Availability Zone. Option C is less efficient because it uses read replicas in a separate Availability Zone, which are read-only copies of your primary database that can serve read traffic and support scaling. However, this does not provide a RPO of less than 1 second for all its production databases, as read replicas use asynchronous replication and can lag behind the primary database. Option D is less efficient because it uses AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) change data capture (CDC) tasks, which are tasks that capture changes made to source data and apply them to target data. However, this does not provide a RPO of less than 1 second for all its production databases, as AWS DMS uses asynchronous replication and can lag behind the source database.

To analyze the performance of the web application with granularity of no more than 2 minutes, enablingdetailed monitoringon 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 References:

Monitoring Amazon EC2 with CloudWatch

Amazon CloudWatch Detailed Monitoring