Pass the Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Associate SAA-C03 Questions and answers with CertsForce

Auto scaling storage RDS will ease storage issues and migrating Oracle Pl/Sql to Aurora is cumbersome. Also Aurora has auto storage scaling by default.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_PIOPS.StorageTypes.html#USER_PIOPS.Autoscaling

Option A is the most appropriate solution for reducing replication lag without significant changes to the application code and minimizing ongoing operational overhead. Migrating the database to Amazon Aurora MySQL allows for improved replication performance and higher scalability compared to Amazon RDS for MySQL. Aurora Replicas provide faster replication, reducing the replication lag, and Aurora Auto Scaling ensures that there are enough Aurora Replicas to handle the incoming traffic. Additionally, Aurora MySQL native functions can replace the stored procedures, reducing the load on the database and improving performance.

RDS supported Storage > https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_Storage.html GP2 max IOPS >https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/general-purpose.html#gp2-performance

Amazon RDS provides three storage types: General Purpose SSD (also known as gp2 and gp3), Provisioned IOPS SSD (also known as io1), and magnetic (also known as standard).They differ in performance characteristics and price, which means that you can tailor your storage performance and cost to the needs of your database workload. You can create MySQL,MariaDB, Oracle, and PostgreSQL RDS DB instances with up to 64 tebibytes (TiB) of storage. You can create SQL Server RDS DB instances with up to 16 TiB of storage. For this amount of storage, use the Provisioned IOPS SSD and General Purpose SSD storage types.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_Storage.html

A because Elasticache, despite being ideal for leaderboards per Amazon, doesn't cache at edge locations. D because FSx has higher performance for low latency needs. https://www.techtarget.com/searchaws/tip/Amazon-FSx-vs-EFS-Compare-the-AWS-file-services "FSx is built for high performance and submillisecond latency using solid-state drive storage volumes. This design enables users to select storage capacity and latency independently.Thus, even a subterabyte file system can have 256 Mbps or higher throughput and support volumes up to 64 TB."

Amazon S3 is an object storage service that can store static files such as images, videos, documents, etc. Amazon EFS is a file storage service that can store files in a hierarchical structure and supports NFS protocol. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server is a file storage service that can store files in a hierarchical structure and supports SMB protocol. Amazon EBS is a block storage service that can store data in fixed-size blocks and attach to EC2 instances.

Based on these definitions, the combination of steps that should be taken to meet the requirements are:

A. Store the static files on Amazon S3. Use Amazon CloudFront to cache objects at the edge. D. Store the server-side code on Amazon FSx for Windows File Server. Mount the FSx for Windows File Server volume on each EC2 instance to share the files.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-use-aws-secrets-manager-rotate-credentials-amazon-rds-database-types-oracle/

Amazon SES is a cost-effective and scalable email service that enables businesses to send and receive email using their own email addresses and domains. Configuring the web instance to send email through Amazon SES is a simple and effective solution that can reduce the time spent resolving complex email delivery issues and minimize operational overhead.

1) SQS FIFO queues guarantee that messages are received in the exact order they are sent. Using the payment ID as the message group ensures all messages for a payment ID are received sequentially. 2) Kinesis data streams can also enforce ordering on a per partition key basis. Using the payment ID as the partition key will ensure strict ordering of messages for each payment ID.

A solutions architect should recommend option A, which is to configure AWS WAF rules and associate them with the ALB. This will allow the company to apply traffic filtering at the application layer, which is necessary for protecting the ALB against common application-level attacks such as cross-site scripting or SQL injection. AWS WAF is a managed service that makes it easy to protect web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. The company can easily manage and update the rules to ensure the security of its application.

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.

• Amazon S3 for large-scale, durable, and inexpensive storage of the video content. S3 storage costs are significantly lower than EFS. • Amazon EBS only temporarily during processing. By mounting an EBS volume only when a video needs to be processed, and unmounting it after, the time the content spends on the higher-cost EBS storage is minimized. • The EBS volume can be sized to match the workload needs for active processing, keeping costs lower. The volume does not need to store the entire video library long-term.

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.

Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility) is a fast, reliable, and fully managed database service. Amazon DocumentDB makes it easy to set up, operate, and scale MongoDB-compatible databases in the cloud. With Amazon DocumentDB, you can run the same application code and use the same drivers and tools that you use with MongoDB.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide/what-is.html

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 AWS DataSync, which is a secure, online service that automates and accelerates moving data between on-premises and AWS Storage services1. It also uses DataSync to transfer large amounts of data back and forth between NFS file systems in the two Regions on a periodic basis, which simplifies and speeds up the data transfer process with minimal operational overhead. This solution meets the requirement of transferring large amounts of data back and forth between NFS file systems in the two Regions on a periodic basis with the least operational overhead. Option B is less efficient because it uses AWS Snowball devices, which are physical devices that let you transfer large amounts of data into and out of AWS2. However, this does not provide a periodic data transfer solution, as it requires manual handling and shipping of the devices. Option C is less efficient because it sets up an SFTP server on Amazon EC2, which is a way to provide secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) access to files stored in Amazon S33. However, this does not provide a periodic data transfer solution, as it requires manual initiation and monitoring of the file transfers. Option D is less efficient because it uses AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS), which is a service that helps you migrate databases to AWS quickly and securely. However, this does not provide a data transfer solution for NFS file systems, as it only supports relational databases and non-relational data stores.

This option is the most efficient because it uses API usage plans and API keys, which are features of Amazon API Gateway that allow you to control who can access your API and how much and how fast they can access it1. It also implements API usage plans and API keys to limit the access of users who do not have a subscription, which enables you to create different tiers ofaccess for your API and charge users accordingly. This solution meets the requirement of updating the application so that only users who have a subscription can access premium content. Option A is less efficient because it uses API caching and throttling on the API Gateway API, which are features of Amazon API Gateway that allow you to improve the performance and availability of your API and protect your backend systems from traffic spikes2. However, this does not provide a way to limit the access of users who do not have a subscription. Option B is less efficient because it uses AWS WAF on the API Gateway API, which is a web application firewall service that helps protect your web applications or APIs against common web exploits that may affect availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources3. However,this does not provide a way to limit the access of users who do not have a subscription. Option C is less efficient because it uses fine-grained IAM permissions to the premium content in the DynamoDB table, which are permissions that allow you to control access to specific items or attributes within a table4. However, this does not provide a way to limit the access of users who do not have a subscription at the API level.

Amazon Transcribe now supports speaker labeling for streaming transcription. Amazon Transcribe is an automatic speech recognition (ASR) service that makes it easy for you to convert speech-to-text. In live audio transcription, each stream of audio may contain multiplespeakers. Now you can conveniently turn on the ability to label speakers, thus helping to identify who is saying what in the output transcript.https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/08/amazon-transcribe-supports-speaker-labeling-streaming-transcription/

Create an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system. Mount the EFS file system on all web servers. To meet the requirements of providing a shared file store for Linux-based web servers without making changes to the application, using an Amazon EFS file system is the best solution. Amazon EFS is a managed NFS file system service that provides shared access to files across multiple Linux-based instances, which makes it suitable for this use case. Amazon S3 is not ideal for this scenario since it is an object storage service and not a file system, and it requires additional tools or libraries to mount the S3 bucket as a filesystem. Amazon CloudFront can be used to improve content delivery performance but is not necessary for this requirement. Additionally, Amazon EBS volumes can only be mounted to one instance at a time, so it is not suitable for sharing files across multiple instances.

The combination of steps that will accomplish the task of making the web server accessible from everywhere on port 443 is to create a security group with a rule to allow TCP port 443 from source 0.0.0.0/0 (A) and to update the network ACL to allow inbound TCP port 443 from source 0.0.0.0/0 (C). This will ensure that traffic to port 443 is allowed both at the security group level and at the network ACL level, which will make the web server accessible from everywhere on port 443.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/transfer/describe-server.html

Creating a peering connection between the two VPCs and configuring an inbound rule for the ElastiCache cluster's security group to allow inbound connection from the application's security group is the most cost-effective solution. Peering connections are free and you only incur the cost of configuring the security group rules. The Transit VPC solution requires additional VPCs and associated resources, which would incur additional costs.

Before Testing | AWS Certification Information and Policies | AWS

https://aws.amazon.com/certification/policies/before-testing/