SAP-C02 Exam Dumps - Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Professional Questions and Answers

The company wants three things: minimize client-to-broker latency within the same Availability Zone, increase available bandwidth, and increase the scaling speed of the MSK cluster. The current brokers are Standard brokers (two per AZ). Clients use default settings, which means they are not explicitly configured for rack awareness or AZ affinity.

A common way to reduce latency in multi-AZ Kafka deployments is to enable rack awareness on clients and brokers so clients prefer brokers in the same “rack,” which can map to an Availability Zone. In Kafka, the client.rack setting allows the client to include rack information so the broker can return metadata that helps the client select replicas that are closest, reducing cross-AZ traffic and improving latency.

To increase bandwidth and improve scaling speed, the most direct approach in the choices is to move from Standard brokers to Express brokers. Express brokers are designed to provide higher throughput and faster scaling characteristics compared to standard broker types. Since the question explicitly calls out increasing available bandwidth and scaling speed, the broker type change is the key lever, and it can be combined with client.rack configuration to minimize cross-AZ latency.

Option C matches these requirements: it replaces Standard brokers with Express brokers (to improve throughput/bandwidth and scaling speed) and sets client.rack to the Availability Zone identifier (az_id) to improve locality and reduce latency between clients and brokers in the same AZ.

Option A is not appropriate because MSK does not use EC2 Auto Scaling predictive scaling in that manner, and Kafka clients/brokers are not “associated” with an EC2 placement group as a primary latency solution in MSK. Placement groups are for EC2 instance placement; MSK broker placement is managed by the service.

Option B introduces a proxy layer and MSK Connect in a way that increases complexity and does not directly guarantee lower latency or higher bandwidth. MSK Connect is for Kafka Connect workloads, not as a general-purpose low-latency routing proxy for Kafka clients. Cruise Control is used for partition rebalancing and cluster optimization, but it does not replace the benefits of higher-throughput broker types and client rack awareness for AZ locality.

Option D increases broker size and introduces PrivateLink endpoints. PrivateLink is about private connectivity from VPCs to services and does not inherently ensure AZ-local broker selection or reduce latency between clients and brokers in the same AZ. Also, resizing to xlarge increases capacity but does not address scaling speed and locality as directly as express brokers plus rack configuration.

Therefore, option C best meets all requirements.

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/s3-upload-large-files/

Enabling S3 Transfer Acceleration on the S3 bucket and configuring the app to use the Transfer Acceleration endpoint for uploads will improve the app ' s performance for these uploads by leveraging Amazon CloudFront ' s globally distributed edge locations to accelerate the uploads. Breaking the video files into chunks and using a multipart upload to transfer files to Amazon S3 will also improve the app ' s performance by allowing parts of the file to be uploaded in parallel, reducing the overall upload time.

 The company should create a resource-based IAM policy that includes conditions for specific DynamoDB attributes (fine-grained access control). The company should attach the policy to the DynamoDB table. In the marketing team’s account, the company should create an IAM role that has permissions to access the DynamoDB table in the finance team’s account. This solution will meet the requirements because a resource-based IAM policy is a policy that you attach to an AWS resource (such as a DynamoDB table) to control who can access that resource and what actions they can perform on it. You can use IAM policyconditions to specify fine-grained access control for DynamoDB items and attributes. For example, you can allow or deny access to specific attributes of all items in a table by matching on attribute names1. By creating a resource-based policy that allows access to only specific attributes of the DynamoDB table and attaching it to the table, the company can restrict access to confidential data. By creating an IAM role in the marketing team’s account that has permissions to access the DynamoDB table in the finance team’s account, the company can enable cross-account access.

The other options are not correct because:

Creating an SCP to grant the marketing team’s AWS account access to the specific attributes of the DynamoDB table would not work because SCPs are policies that you can use with AWS Organizations to manage permissions in your organization’s accounts. SCPs do not grant permissions; instead, they specify the maximum permissions that identities in an account can have2. SCPs cannot be used to specify fine-grained access control for DynamoDB items and attributes.

Creating an IAM role in the finance team’s account by using IAM policy conditions for specific DynamoDB attributes and establishing trust with the marketing team’s account would not work because IAM roles are identities that you can create in your account that have specific permissions. You can use an IAM role to delegate access to users, applications, or services that don’t normally have access to your AWS resources3. However, creating an IAM role in the finance team’s account would not restrict access to specific attributes of the DynamoDB table; it would only allow cross-account access. The company would still need a resource-based policy attached to the table to enforce fine-grained access control.

Creating an IAM role in the finance team’s account to access the DynamoDB table and using an IAM permissions boundary to limit the access to the specific attributes would not work because IAM permissions boundaries are policies that you use to delegate permissions management to other users. You can use permissions boundaries to limit the maximum permissions that an identity-based policy can grant to an IAM entity (user or role)4. Permissions boundaries cannot be used to specify fine-grained access control for DynamoDB items and attributes.

This explanation is based on AWS documentation and best practices but is paraphrased, not a literal extract.

The company wants to move from a manual EC2 and EBS-based workflow to a containerized application on Amazon EKS and automate data movement. The solution must:

Support automated transfer of raw and processed data.

Offer multiprotocol support.

Be directly usable from the EKS cluster as a mounted volume.

Minimize operational effort by using managed services where possible.

AWS DataSync is a managed service designed to move data between on-premises storage and AWS storage services or between AWS storage services. It can perform scheduled or continuous transfers with minimal operational overhead. For storage accessible from Amazon EKS, a shared file system that supports mounting as a volume is appropriate.

Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP provides a fully managed file system with multiprotocol support, including NFS and SMB, and supports features such as snapshots and storage efficiencies. Because it supports multiple protocols, it satisfies the requirement for multiprotocol access and can be mounted by applications running in Amazon EKS using standard Kubernetes persistent volume mechanisms.

In the correct solution (option C), DataSync is used to copy raw data from the on-premises environment to FSx for NetApp ONTAP. The FSx for NetApp ONTAP file system is then mounted as a volume in the EKS cluster, allowing the containerized analytics processing logic to read and write data directly. After processing, DataSync is again used to copy processed data from FSx for NetApp ONTAP to Amazon S3 for long-term storage. This leverages DataSync’s native integration with both FSx for NetApp ONTAP and Amazon S3, and avoids the need to run or manage custom upload tooling.

Option A uses Amazon EFS, which supports NFS but does not provide multiprotocol support (for example, SMB), so it does not fully meet the multiprotocol requirement. It also introduces AWS Transfer for SFTP for the processed data upload, which adds an additional managed endpoint and SFTP-based flow, increasing complexity relative to using DataSync end-to-end.

Option B uses Amazon FSx for Lustre, which is optimized for high-performance compute workloads and integrates well with S3, but it is not a multiprotocol file system and is typically accessed via NFS. It does not meet the stated multiprotocol requirement.

Option D uses FSx for NetApp ONTAP (which supports multiprotocol) but relies on AWS Transfer for SFTP to move processed data to S3. While this can work, it adds another managed input endpoint and requires SFTP client configuration and management. Using DataSync directly from FSx for NetApp ONTAP to Amazon S3 (as in option C) is more straightforward, better suited for automated large-scale transfers, and involves less operational overhead.

Therefore, option C meets all the requirements with the least operational effort by using DataSync with FSx for NetApp ONTAP and S3.

A is correct because when a Lambda function is configured to run inside a VPC, it uses ENIs in the selected subnets and does not receive a public IPv4 address. To reach the public internet from private subnets, outbound IPv4 traffic must go through a NAT gateway (or NAT instance). A NAT gateway uses an Elastic IP address (EIP) for its public source address. Therefore, if the external provider requires public IPv4 allowlisting, the company should place the Lambda function in private subnets with a route to the NAT gateways, then provide the provider with the EIPs of the NAT gateways that will be used for egress. This satisfies the requirement to provide connectivity details in advance and ensures the provider sees only the approved public IPv4 addresses.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B (egress-only internet gateway): An egress-only internet gateway is for IPv6 outbound-only traffic, not IPv4. It does not provide an IPv4 address to allowlist, and it is not used to solve “public IPv4 allowlist” requirements.

C (associate EIP with an internet gateway): You cannot associate an Elastic IP address with an internet gateway. Internet gateways do not have a single, customer-assigned EIP for all egress. Also, placing Lambda in public subnets does not automatically give Lambda a stable public IP; Lambda in a VPC still uses private IPs on ENIs and would need NAT (for private subnet egress) or different architecture for stable egress IPs.

D (ENA for Lambda): Lambda does not support attaching a custom ENA device or installing an ENA driver via a Lambda layer to control a stable public source IP. Lambda’s VPC networking is managed by AWS; you cannot present an ENI’s private IP as an internet-routable public IPv4 allowlist address.

B is correct because Amazon FSx for Lustre provides a high-performance, POSIX-compliant file system that can be directly linked with Amazon S3 using data repository integration. This allows the EC2-based processing engine (which requires POSIX file operations) to read/write files through a mounted Lustre file system while automatically importing objects from S3 and exporting results back to S3 using Lustre’s S3 integration policies. This satisfies all requirements: POSIX file access, no need to change the application to use the S3 API, and automated synchronization for both inputs and outputs.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: DataSync is designed for scheduled or task-based data transfers. It does not provide a mounted POSIX file system interface for the application to read/write “in place,” and the “without an agent” requirement is not a fit for an EC2-hosted POSIX workflow that needs continuous file semantics.

C: Amazon EFS is POSIX and mountable, but “data repository associations to S3” is not an EFS capability in the way described. EFS does not provide native bidirectional automatic sync with S3 using import/export policies like FSx for Lustre’s S3 integration.

D: S3 File Gateway provides a file interface backed by S3, but keeping cache coherent with explicit RefreshCache calls is operationally complex and not truly “automatic synchronization” in the sense required. It also introduces caching behaviors that can complicate immediate availability expectations.

The use of provisioned concurrency ensures the web application’s Lambda functions have pre-initialized execution environments, removing cold start latency and maintaining performance during high-traffic periods.

Route 53 health checks and failover records automate DNS failover to the secondary Region, improving application availability and reliability.

The CloudWatch alarm is configured to monitor the Lambda ConcurrentExecutions metric and send an SNS notification if concurrency usage nears the limit, enabling quick operational response.

This approach minimizes manual management, ensuring reliability and performance during peak traffic while meeting best practices for AWS Lambda and Route 53 failover.

The correct solution is to use AWS Site-to-Site VPN with AWS Transit Gateway. The requirement is private connectivity from an AWS VPC to an on-premises data center, encryption in transit, and IPv6 support. AWS Site-to-Site VPN provides encrypted IPsec tunnels between AWS and the customer gateway. However, AWS documentation states that virtual private gateways do not support IPv6 traffic for Site-to-Site VPN connections; IPv6 support requires a transit gateway or Cloud WAN. Therefore, option C fails the IPv6 requirement even though it uses Site-to-Site VPN. Client VPN is for client-based remote user access, not site-to-site data center connectivity, so options B and D are wrong. Transit Gateway also scales better for future VPC or hybrid expansion. (AWS Documentation)

===============

 The company should configure a cross-Region read replica for the RDS database in the new Region. The company should change the Route 53 record to latency-based routing to connect to the API Gateway API. This solution will meet the requirements because a cross-Region read replica is a feature that enables you to create a MariaDB, MySQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL, or SQL Server read replica in a different Region from the source DB instance. You can use cross-Region read replicas to improve availability and disaster recovery, scale out globally, or migrate an existing database to a new Region1. By creating a cross-Region read replica for the RDS database in the new Region, the company can have a standby copy of its primary database that can serve read-only traffic from users in Europe. A latency-based routing policy is a feature that enables you to route traffic based on the latency between your users and your resources. You can use latency-based routing to route traffic to the resource that provides the best latency2. By changing the Route 53 record to latency-based routing, the company can minimize latency for users who download reports by connecting them to the API Gateway API in the Region that provides the best response time.

The other options are not correct because:

Using AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) to replicate the primary database in the original Region to the database in the new Region would not be as cost-effective or simple as using a cross-Region read replica. AWS DMS is a service that enables you to migrate relational databases, data warehouses, NoSQL databases, and other types of data stores. You can use AWS DMS to perform one-time migrations or continuous data replication with high availability and consolidate databases intoa petabyte-scale data warehouse3. However, AWS DMS requires more configuration and management than creating a cross-Region read replica, which is fully managed by Amazon RDS. AWS DMS also incurs additional charges for replication instances and tasks.

Creating an Amazon API Gateway Data API service integration with Amazon Redshift would not help with disaster recovery or minimizing latency. The Data API is a feature that enables you to query your Amazon Redshift cluster using HTTP requests, without needing a persistent connection or a SQL client. It is useful forbuilding applications that interact with Amazon Redshift, but not for replicating or recovering data from an RDS database.

Creating an AWS Data Exchange datashare by connecting AWS Data Exchange to the Redshift cluster would not help with disaster recovery or minimizing latency. AWS Data Exchange is a service that makes it easy for AWS customers to exchange data in the cloud. You can use AWS Data Exchange to subscribe to a diverse selection of third-party data products or offer your own data products to other AWS customers. A datashare is a feature that enables you to share live and secure access to your Amazon Redshift data across your accounts or with third parties without copying or moving the underlying data. It is useful for sharing query results and views with other users, but not for replicating or recovering data from an RDS database.

The correct answer is D. Use a scheduled scaling policy for the EC2 instances. Host the database on an Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL Multi-AZ DB cluster. Create an Amazon EventBridge rule that invokes an AWS Lambda function to create a larger Aurora Replica before a sale event. Fail over to the larger Aurora Replica. Create another EventBridge rule that invokes another Lambda function to scale down the Aurora Replica after the sale event.

This solution will meet the requirements of maximizing availability during the sale events. A scheduled scaling policy for the EC2 instances will allow the application to scale up and down according to the predefined schedule of the sale events. Hosting the database on an Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL Multi-AZ DB cluster will provide high availability and durability, as well as compatibility with PostgreSQL. Creating an Amazon EventBridge rule that invokes an AWS Lambda function to create a larger Aurora Replica before a sale event will ensure that the database can handle the increased read traffic during the peak periods. Failing over to the larger Aurora Replica will make it the primary instance, which will also improve the write performance of the database. Creating another EventBridge rule that invokes another Lambda function to scale down the Aurora Replica after the sale event will reduce the cost and resources of the database.

Creating an AWS Cost and Usage Report for the organization and defining tags and cost categories in the report will allow for detailed cost reporting for the different companies that have been consolidated into one organization. By creating a table in Amazon Athena and an Amazon QuickSight dataset based on the Athena table, the finance team will be able to easily query and generate reports on the costs for all the companies. The dataset can then be shared with the finance team for them to use for their reporting needs.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/new-enhancements-for-moving-data-between-amazon-fsx-for-lustre-and-amazon-s3/

This explanation is based on AWS documentation and best practices but is paraphrased, not a literal extract.

The scenario describes a central event broker and multiple microservices running in separate AWS accounts that all need to consume the same events. The requirement is to distribute events from a central location to many microservices across accounts in a scalable and loosely coupled way, as part of modernizing to a microservices architecture.

Amazon EventBridge is a serverless event bus service designed for event-driven architectures. It supports centralized event buses, rich content-based filtering with rules, and cross-account event routing. With EventBridge, you can create an event bus in a central account and define rules that match specific event patterns (for example, by microservice or event type). Each rule can have one or more targets, including event buses in other AWS accounts. This supports the pattern of having a central event bus in one account and distributing relevant events to other accounts, where each microservice consumes events either directly from its own event bus or through additional rules and targets in its own account.

In this solution, you create a new EventBridge event bus in the central account and grant the appropriate permissions for cross-account access (option B). You then define EventBridge rules on the central event bus, filtered per microservice or per event category, and configure the rules to send events to the respective event buses or targets in the microservices’ accounts. EventBridge handles the fan-out and delivery of events across accounts in a managed, scalable way, which aligns with the modernization goal and reduces the operational overhead of managing custom routing or polling logic.

Option A uses an SNS topic with SQS queues in each account. This is a valid fan-out pattern and supports cross-account subscriptions, but it is more suited to traditional pub/sub messaging and does not provide the event routing, filtering, and observability features that EventBridge offers for modern event-driven microservices. In scenarios that explicitly mention an event broker and modernization, EventBridge is the recommended service.

Option C is incorrect because Kinesis Data Streams is designed for high-throughput streaming data and requires building and managing consumer applications. The description in the option is also technically inaccurate; Kinesis does not “invoke” microservices directly as event targets in the same way as EventBridge or SNS does. Instead, applications must read from the stream.

Option D uses a single central SQS queue that all microservices read from. SQS provides at-least-once delivery to competing consumers, which means multiple consumers reading from the same queue will typically share messages rather than each getting all messages. This does not satisfy the requirement for multiple microservices to each receive the same events independently. It also reduces decoupling and observability compared to an event bus model.

Therefore, creating an Amazon EventBridge event bus in the central account with rules to distribute events across accounts (option B) best meets the requirements for distributing events from a central broker to multiple microservices across accounts in a modernized architecture.