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

This solution is the most cost-effective and efficient way to break down costs per application.

Tagging Resources: By tagging all AWS resources with a specific key (e.g., "cost") and a value representing the application's name, you can easily identify and categorize costs associated with each application. This tagging strategy allows for granular tracking of costs within AWS.

Activating Cost Allocation Tags: Once tags are applied to resources, you need to activate cost allocation tags in the AWS Billing and Cost Management console. This ensures that the costs associated with each tag are included in your billing reports and can be used for cost analysis.

AWS Cost Explorer: Cost Explorer is a powerful tool that allows you to visualize, understand, and manage your AWS costs and usage over time. You can filter and group your cost data by the tags you’ve applied to resources, enabling you to easily see the cost breakdown for each application. Cost Explorer also supports generating regular reports, which can be scheduled and emailed to stakeholders.

Why Not Other Options?:

Option A (AWS Budgets): AWS Budgets is more focused on setting cost and usage thresholds and monitoring them, rather than providing detailed cost breakdowns by application.

Option B (Load Cost and Usage Reports into RDS): This approach is less cost-effective and involves more operational overhead, as it requires setting up and maintaining an RDS instance and running SQL queries.

Option D (AWS Billing and Cost Management Console): While you can download bills, this method is more manual and less dynamic compared to using Cost Explorer with activated tags.

AWS References:

AWS Tagging Strategies- Overview of how to use tagging to organize and track AWS resources.

AWS Cost Explorer- Details on how to use Cost Explorer to analyze costs.

Amazon Elastic File System (EFS) is a managed file storage service that can be mounted across multiple EC2 instances. It provides a scalable and high-performing solution to share data among instances within a VPC.

High Performance: EFS provides scalable performance for workloads that require high throughput and IOPS. It is particularly well-suited for applications that need to share data across multiple instances.

Ease of Use: EFS can be easily mounted on multiple instances across different Availability Zones, providing a shared file system accessible to all the instances within the VPC.

Security: EFS can be configured to ensure that data remains within the VPC, and it supports encryption at rest and in transit.

Why Not Other Options?:

Option A (Amazon S3 bucket with APIs): While S3 is excellent for object storage, it is not a file system and does not provide the low-latency access required for shared data between instances.

Option B (S3 bucket as a mounted volume): S3 is not designed to be mounted as a file system, and this approach would introduce unnecessary complexity and latency.

Option C (EBS volume shared across instances): EBS volumes cannot be attached to multiple instances simultaneously. It is not designed to be shared across instances like EFS.

AWS References:

Amazon EFS- Overview of Amazon EFS and its features.

Best Practices for Amazon EFS- Recommendations for using EFS with multiple instances.

The question focuses on minimizing costs while serving static content to users in the US and Europe.

Option Auses a single S3 bucket and configures CloudFront to limit edge locations, reducing costs by using fewer edge locations while still improving performance.

Option Bmaximizes edge locations, which increases costs unnecessarily.

Options C and Dinvolve storing data in multiple regions, which increases storage and operational costs.Thus, Option A is the most cost-effective solution.

A. Amazon EFS:Provides a scalable, shared file storage solution with minimal operational overhead. It's ideal for Linux-based workloads.

B. Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP:More suited for workloads requiring NetApp-specific features.

C. Amazon EBS:Requires manual management of file shares, which increases operational overhead.

D. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server:Best suited for Windows SMB workloads with low operational overhead.

E. Amazon FSx for OpenZFS:Better for Linux and Unix-based workloads.

Amazon Aurora MySQL supports the SELECT INTO OUTFILE S3 SQL syntax to export query results directly to Amazon S3. This is an efficient and low-overhead method for archiving data.

Once data is in S3, Lifecycle rules can be configured to automatically transition older data to lower-cost storage classes (such as S3 Glacier) or delete it after a defined period, providing a cost-optimized and automated archive solution.

The Glue-based options involve more services and operational overhead. SCT is intended for database migrations, not for periodic data archival.

Aurora blue/green deployments are specifically designed for:

Safely testing schema changes and database upgrades in an isolated environment (green) without impacting production (blue).

Performing a fast, low-downtime switchover once testing is complete and validated.

In this pattern:

The blue environment is the current production database.

The green environment is a synchronized copy used for testing changes.

You apply schema changes to the green environment, run tests, and when ready, perform a managed switchover that minimizes downtime and risk.

Why others are not ideal:

A: A separate staging cluster allows testing but does not provide automated, low-downtime synchronization and switchover.

B: Aurora read replicas are for read scaling; schema changes on replicas are not supported in the way described, and promotion alone doesn’t solve controlled testing and replication of changes.

D: Moving to DynamoDB changes database engines and data models entirely, and does not match the requirement to keep using Aurora MySQL.

AWS Batch supports Windows-based jobs and automates provisioning and scaling of compute environments. Paired with AWS Fargate, it removes the need to manage infrastructure. This solution requires the least operational overhead and is cloud-native, providing flexibility and scalability.

Background Jobs with Event Invocation Type:

The Event invocation type is asynchronous, meaning the Lambda function does not send an immediate result to the API Gateway and processes the request in the background. This is ideal for video encoding tasks that take time.

REST API vs. HTTP API:

REST APIs support advanced features like API keys, request validation, and throttling that HTTP APIs do not support fully.

Since the developer needs API keys and request validations, a REST API is the correct choice.

Integration with Lambda:

AWS Lambda integration is seamless with REST APIs, and using the Event invocation ensures asynchronous processing.

Incorrect Options Analysis:

Option A: HTTP API lacks full support for API keys and validation.

Option CandD: RequestResponse invocation type requires immediate responses, unsuitable for background jobs.

The workload is bursting and must be able to buffer more orders than the printers can process. The best practice for this is a durable, scalable queue: Amazon SQS.

SQS decouples the frontend from the backend and can handle large, spiky volumes of messages.

AWS Lambda is a good fit for processing messages from SQS because it scales automatically with queue depth and requires no server management.

Deploying the frontend in Docker on Amazon ECS with Fargate provides a fully managed, auto-scaling container environment without managing EC2 instances.

Why others are not correct:

A and D: SNS is a pub/sub service, not a queue; it does not provide durable back-pressure buffering when the printers are slower than incoming requests. Lambda@Edge is for CloudFront edge processing, not back-end order processing.

B: Same SNS issue—no durable queue semantics and not ideal for workload that must be buffered and retried.

The company is looking for a solution that provides single sign-on (SSO) across multiple AWS accounts while continuing to manage users and groups in their on-premises Active Directory (AD). AWS IAM Identity Center (formerly AWS SSO) is the recommended solution for this type of requirement.

AWS IAM Identity Centerprovides a centralized identity management solution, enabling single sign-on across multiple AWS accounts and other cloud applications. It can integrate with on-premises Active Directory to leverage existing users and groups.

By configuring a two-way forest trust relationship between AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory and the company's on-premises Active Directory, users can be authenticated by their on-premises AD and still access AWS resources through IAM Identity Center. This solution allows centralized management of AWS accounts within AWS Organizations.

The two-way trust allows mutual access between the on-premises AD and the AWS Directory Service. This means that users and groups in the on-premises AD can be used for authentication in AWS IAM Identity Center while maintaining the existing identity management system.

AWS References:

AWS IAM Identity Center Documentation

AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory Trust Relationships

AWS Directory Service Integration with IAM Identity Center

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Create an Enterprise Edition Active Directory in AWS Directory Service: This would require setting up a new directory and managing it in AWS, which adds unnecessary overhead. The requirement is to continue using the existing on-premises AD, making this option unsuitable.

C. Use AWS Directory Service and create a two-way trust relationship: While this approach establishes a trust between on-premises AD and AWS Directory Service, it does not address the single sign-on (SSO) requirements across multiple AWS accounts through IAM Identity Center.

D. Deploy an identity provider (IdP) on Amazon EC2: This is more complex than necessary and introduces more management overhead. AWS IAM Identity Center natively supports integration with on-premises Active Directory without requiring a custom IdP.

This solution provides the most secure access for external support engineers with the least exposure to potential security risks.

AWS Systems Manager (SSM) and Session Manager: Systems Manager Session Manager allows secure and auditable access to EC2 instances without the need to open inbound SSH ports or manage SSH keys. This reduces the attack surface significantly. The SSM Agent must be installed and configured on all instances, and the instances must have an instance profile with the necessary IAM permissions to connect to Systems Manager.

IAM Identity Center: IAM Identity Center provides centralized management of access to the AWS Management Console for external support engineers. By using IAM Identity Center, youcan control console access securely and ensure that external engineers have the appropriate permissions based on their roles.

Why Not Other Options?:

Option B (Local IAM user credentials): This approach is less secure because it involves managing local IAM user credentials and does not leverage the centralized management and security benefits of IAM Identity Center.

Option C (Security group with SSH access): Allowing SSH access opens up the infrastructure to potential security risks, even when restricted by IP addresses. It also requires managing SSH keys, which can be cumbersome and less secure.

Option D (Bastion host): While a bastion host can secure SSH access, it still requires managing SSH keys and opening ports. This approach is less secure and more operationally intensive compared to using Session Manager.

AWS References:

AWS Systems Manager Session Manager- Documentation on using Session Manager for secure instance access.

AWS IAM Identity Center- Overview of IAM Identity Center and its capabilities for managing user access.

Amazon RDS read replicas provide a way to offload read traffic from the primary database, allowing read-intensive applications to query the replica without impacting the performance of the production (write) database. This is especially effective for workloads that involve frequently changing data but do not benefit from caching, since queries are rarely repeated.

Reference Extract from AWS Documentation / Study Guide:

"Read replicas allow you to elastically scale out beyond the capacity constraints of a single DB instance for read-heavy database workloads."

Source: AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Official Study Guide, RDS Read Replica section.

Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL with Babelfish allows SQL Server applications to run directly on Aurora PostgreSQL with minimal code changes. Babelfish adds a SQL Server-compatible endpoint, significantly lowering costs compared to running licensed SQL Server instances on RDS or EC2.

AWS Documentation Extract:

“Babelfish for Aurora PostgreSQL enables Aurora to understand T-SQL and SQL Server wire protocol, allowing you to run SQL Server applications on Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL with lower costs.”

(Source: Babelfish for Aurora PostgreSQL documentation)

A, D: SQL Server on EC2 or RDS incurs high Microsoft licensing costs.

C: Plain PostgreSQL would require more code refactoring than Babelfish.

Amazon S3 is the most cost-effective option for archiving data. Using AWS DMS to migrate to S3 in Apache Parquet format provides an optimized columnar format for analytics. By storing in S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval, costs are minimized while maintaining compliance with retention. When queries are required, Athena can run SQL queries directly on archived data in S3 without provisioning infrastructure. Options A and B rely on maintaining RDS or EC2 instances, which increases cost and operational overhead. Option C requires full restores to EC2 before running queries, which is slow and inefficient. Therefore, D provides the lowest operational overhead and direct query capability with Athena.

Amazon S3 Bucket Keys reduce the cost of AWS KMS API requests by generating a data key at the bucket level instead of individually calling KMS for every object read or written. This approach is particularly effective when workloads, such as ML pipelines, involve reading large numbers of encrypted objects. Switching to AWS managed keys (A) does not reduce the frequency of API calls. Removing encryption (B) would violate compliance/security requirements. Using CloudHSM (C) adds cost and operational burden. Therefore, the correct solution is D — enabling S3 Bucket Keys with SSE-KMS, which significantly reduces decryption costs while maintaining secure encryption.