Free Amazon Web Services Data-Engineer-Associate Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 8

Amazon EC2 instances can use two types of storage volumes: instance store volumes and Amazon EBS volumes. Instance store volumes are ephemeral, meaning they are only attached to the instance for the duration of its life cycle. If the instance is stopped, terminated, or fails, the data on the instance store volume is lost. Amazon EBS volumes are persistent, meaning they can be detached from the instance and attached to another instance, and the data on the volume is preserved. To meet the requirement of persisting the data even if the EC2 instances are terminated, the data engineer must use Amazon EBS volumes to store the application data. The solution is to launch new EC2 instances by using an AMI that is backed by an EC2 instance store volume, which is the default option for most AMIs. Then, the data engineer must attach an Amazon EBS volume to each instance and configure the application to write the data to the EBS volume. This way, the data will be saved on the EBS volume and can be accessed by another instance if needed. The data engineer can apply the default settings to the EC2 instances, as there is no need to modify the instance type, security group, or IAM role for this solution. The other options are either not feasible or not optimal. Launching new EC2 instances by using an AMI that is backed by an EC2 instance store volume that contains the application data (option A) or by using an AMI that is backed by a root Amazon EBS volume that contains the application data (option B) would not work, as the data on the AMI would be outdated and overwritten by the new instances. Attaching an additional EC2 instance store volume to contain the application data (option D) would not work, as the data on the instance store volume would be lost if the instance is terminated. References:

Amazon EC2 Instance Store

Amazon EBS Volumes

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide, Chapter 2: Data Store Management, Section 2.1: Amazon EC2

Option B is the only solution that supports near real-time updates from a continuously changing source to Amazon Redshift. The requirement says the on-premises PostgreSQL database is “continuously updated” and the target must be updated “as quickly as possible.” Nightly full backups or nightly full loads (Options A and D) inherently introduce at least a daily lag, which violates the freshness requirement. Similarly, exporting with pg_dump and reloading with COPY (Option C) is a batch approach and does not provide continuous change propagation.

The study material explicitly positions AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) for database migrations and highlights that it supports both full-load and change data capture (CDC), and that CDC enables continuous replication so ongoing changes can be applied after the initial load.

Therefore, a DMS task configured for full load + CDC provides the fastest ongoing synchronization pattern: it performs the initial migration and then continuously captures and applies changes so Redshift stays current with minimal delay compared to periodic batch reloads.

Option D is correct because Aurora zero-ETL integration with Amazon Redshift is the AWS-managed feature built specifically to make transactional Aurora data available in Amazon Redshift Serverless in near real time. AWS documents that Aurora zero-ETL is a fully managed solution that makes transactional data available in the analytics destination after it is written to the Aurora cluster, eliminating the need to build and maintain complex ETL pipelines. AWS also states that Redshift zero-ETL supports a target data warehouse that can be a Redshift Serverless workgroup, which directly matches the question.

Option A and C add more operational components, such as DMS tasks, replication design, schema handling, and additional streaming infrastructure. Option B is also more operationally heavy because MSK Connect with Debezium requires Kafka-based CDC infrastructure and connector management. Since the requirement emphasizes serverless, near real-time analytics, and least operational overhead, the native zero-ETL integration is the best fit. This also aligns with the study guide’s focus on choosing AWS services that minimize management effort while supporting ingestion and analytics workflows.

Option A is correct because this is a sequential, dependent workflow where each validation stage depends on the previous one, and the overall execution can last up to 24 hours. AWS states that Standard Workflows in Step Functions are ideal for long-running, durable, auditable workflows and can run for up to one year. AWS also documents the Wait for a Callback with Task Token pattern, which is specifically designed for workflows that must pause until an external process reports completion. That maps directly to multi-level validations that may complete asynchronously but still need orchestration within a bounded window.

Option B is incorrect because Express Workflows can run for only up to five minutes, so they cannot support a transaction workflow that may take many hours. Option C adds more custom code and operational management than Step Functions and does not naturally provide the same stateful orchestration, dependency tracking, and callback waiting pattern. Option D is also more operationally heavy and is better suited to data pipeline orchestration than per-transaction validation workflows. Therefore, Standard Step Functions provides the lowest operational cost while fully meeting the timing and dependency requirements.

S3 Intelligent-Tiering is a storage class that automatically moves objects between four access tiers based on the changing access patterns. The default access tier consists of two tiers: Frequent Access and Infrequent Access. Objects in the Frequent Access tier have the same performance and availability as S3 Standard, while objects in the Infrequent Access tier have the same performance and availability as S3 Standard-IA. S3 Intelligent-Tiering monitors the access patterns of each object and moves them between the tiers accordingly, without any operational overhead or retrieval fees. This solution can optimize S3 storage costs for data with unpredictable and variable access patterns, while ensuring millisecond latency for data retrieval. The other solutions are not optimal or relevant for this requirement. Using S3 Storage Lens standard metrics and activity metrics can provide insights into the storage usage and access patterns, but they do not automate the data movement between storage classes. Creating S3 Lifecycle policies for the S3 buckets can move objects to more cost-optimized storage classes, but they require manual configuration and maintenance, and they may incur retrieval fees for data that is accessed unexpectedly. Activating the Deep Archive Access tier for S3 Intelligent-Tiering can further reduce the storage costs for data that is rarely accessed, but it also increases the retrieval time to 12 hours, which does not meet the requirement of millisecond latency. References:

S3 Intelligent-Tiering

S3 Storage Lens

S3 Lifecycle policies

[AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide]

According to the guide:

“For integrating streaming data from Amazon MSK into Amazon Redshift efficiently and cost-effectively, AWS Glue streaming jobs can process and transform the data, storing it in Amazon S3. Amazon Redshift Spectrum can then directly query the data from S3, minimizing operational overhead and reducing storage costs.”

– Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

This setup offers:

Low latency via Glue streaming.

Low storage cost by using Parquet/ORC on S3.

Minimal operational overhead by avoiding complex pipelines or constantly updated materialized views.

Versioning with MFA Delete protects against accidental or malicious deletions by requiring multi-factor authentication to permanently remove objects or versions.

“To protect data from accidental deletion, enable S3 Versioning and MFA Delete, which requires MFA for object deletions and prevents unintentional loss.”

– Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

This is the AWS best practice for securing critical S3 data.

Lake Formation requires that S3 locations be registered before they can be accessed by AWS Glue crawlers, jobs, or queries. Registering the location associates it with the Lake Formation permissions framework.

“Before AWS Glue crawlers can access an S3 path managed by Lake Formation, the S3 location must be registered in Lake Formation.”

– Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

The Amazon EventBridge Scheduler offers a simple, serverless cron-based execution mechanism. It can trigger an AWS Glue ETL job that extracts data from Amazon RDS, formats it as CSV, and writes it to Amazon S3 — all without manual orchestration or servers.

“For scheduled data extraction and transformation, use AWS Glue jobs triggered by EventBridge Scheduler for fully managed, low-maintenance workflows.”

– Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

Glue natively integrates with RDS and S3, avoiding the need to manage Batch or EMR infrastructure.

AWS Glue is a fully managed serverless ETL service that can handle various data sources and formats, including .csv files in Amazon S3. AWS Glue provides two types of jobs: PySpark and Python shell. PySpark jobs use Apache Spark to process large-scale data in parallel, while Python shell jobs use Python scripts to process small-scale data in a single execution environment. For this requirement, a Python shell job is more suitable and cost-effective, as the size of each S3 object is less than 100 MB, which does not require distributed processing. A Python shell job can use pandas, a popular Python library for data analysis, to transform the .csv data as needed. The other solutions are not optimal or relevant for this requirement. Writing a custom Python application and hosting it on an Amazon EKS cluster would require more effort and resources to set up and manage the Kubernetes environment, as well as to handle the data ingestion and transformation logic. Writing a PySpark ETL script and hosting it on an Amazon EMR cluster would also incur more costs and complexity to provision and configure the EMR cluster, as well as to use Apache Spark for processing small data files. Writing an AWS Glue PySpark job would also be less efficient and economical than a Python shell job, as it would involve unnecessary overhead and charges for using Apache Spark for small data files. References:

AWS Glue

Working with Python Shell Jobs

pandas

[AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide]