Free Amazon Web Services SAA-C03 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 8

Amazon Managed Service for Apache Flink (formerly Kinesis Data Analytics) is a fully managed, serverless service for real-time processing of streaming data. You can consume data from Kinesis Data Streams, perform anomaly detection, and then output the results to another Kinesis stream. This approach is loosely coupled, fully managed, and does not require modifying the application code.

AWS Documentation Extract:

“Amazon Managed Service for Apache Flink enables you to process streaming data in real time, integrating with Kinesis Data Streams as source and sink, and is fully managed and serverless.”

(Source: Apache Flink on AWS documentation)

B: S3/Redshift is not real-time and adds complexity.

C, D: EC2/ECS solutions are not serverless or fully managed.

To enable DNS resolution from AWS VPCs to on-premises DNS servers over Direct Connect or VPN, AWS recommends using Amazon Route 53 Resolver with outbound endpoints. An outbound endpoint allows DNS queries originating in the VPC to be forwarded to a customer-managed DNS server (e.g., on-prem).

Next, a forwarding rule (Forward type) must be created to forward DNS queries for the custom domain internal.example.com to the on-premises DNS IP addresses. This rule defines what domain names are forwarded and to which DNS servers.

Finally, the rule must be associated with all workload VPCs to allow those VPCs to use the rule. There is no need to deploy endpoints in every VPC — one outbound endpoint is sufficient and can be shared across VPCs via rule association.

???? Reference:

Route 53 Resolver Endpoints

Best practices for hybrid DNS resolution

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

Amazon S3 Multi-Region Access Points allow applications to access S3 buckets in multiple Regions through a single global endpoint. This provides active-active read access with automatic routing to the closest bucket for low latency. With cross-Region replication, writes in the primary Region are automatically copied to the secondary Region, providing fault tolerance. Option A (CloudFront) provides caching and distribution, but does not address write replication or active-active bucket access. Option B (Transfer Acceleration) optimizes uploads across distances but does not enable cross-Region fault tolerance. Option C (AWS Backup) is designed for backup/restore, not real-time multi-Region reads and writes. Therefore, D is the correct solution for active-active read access and disaster recovery.

To ensure ALB access only via CloudFront, AWS prescribes restricting the origin to traffic from CloudFront. For ALB origins, the standard pattern is to allow inbound to the ALB only from CloudFront edge IP ranges using security groups or ALB listener rules. Network ACLs are coarse and stateless and add operational burden. CloudFront does not have a “VPC origin” object; instead, CloudFront references the ALB DNS name. By limiting the ALB’s security group to CloudFront IP ranges, direct client access to the ALB is blocked while CloudFront remains permitted. This aligns with security best practices to “restrict origin access to only CloudFront” and use SGs for instance/ALB layer controls.

This solution allows for secure and least-privilege access with minimal operational overhead.

IAM Identity Center: AWS IAM Identity Center (formerly AWS SSO) enables you to centrally manage access to multiple AWS accounts and applications. By using IAM Identity Center, you can assign permission sets that define what users or groups can access, ensuring that only necessary permissions are granted.

Permission Sets: Permission sets in IAM Identity Center allow you to define granular access controls for specific services, such as Amazon RDS and S3. You can tailor these permissions to meet the needs of different teams, adhering to the principle of least privilege.

Group Management: By assigning users to groups and associating those groups with specific permission sets, you reduce the complexity and overhead of managing individual IAM roles and policies. This method also simplifies compliance and audit processes.

Why Not Other Options?:

Option A (IAM roles): While IAM roles can provide least-privilege access, managing multiple roles and policies across teams increases operational overhead compared to using IAM Identity Center.

Option C (Individual IAM users): Managing individual IAM users and roles can be cumbersome and does not scale well compared to group-based management in IAM Identity Center.

Option D (AWS Organizations with cross-account roles): Creating separate accounts and cross-account roles adds unnecessary complexity and overhead for this use case, where IAM Identity Center provides a more straightforward solution.

AWS References:

AWS IAM Identity Center- Overview and best practices for using IAM Identity Center.

Managing Access Permissions Using IAM Identity Center- Guide on creating and managing permission sets for secure access.

Amazon EC2 On-Demand Instances: Since the batch jobs cannot be disrupted, On-Demand Instances provide the necessary reliability and availability.

Amazon S3 Standard: Storing data in S3 Standard for the first 30 days ensures quick and frequent access.

S3 Glacier Deep Archive: After 30 days, moving data to S3 Glacier Deep Archive significantly reduces storage costs for data that is rarely accessed.

S3 Lifecycle Configuration: Automating the transition and deletion of objects using lifecycle policies ensures cost optimization and compliance with data retention requirements.

Deploying the web application on EC2 instances in private subnets behind an internal ALB ensures that the application is not directly accessible from the internet. By setting up a Site-to-Site VPN connection, the application can be accessed securely from the company's office network. Deploying NAT gateways in public subnets allows instances in private subnets to initiate outbound connections to the internet for downloading security patches.

For a large-scale multi-account AWS environment with many VPCs and centralized Direct Connect, AWS recommends using a Transit Gateway (TGW) architecture combined with a Direct Connect gateway (DXGW). This setup allows scalable, centralized connectivity between on-premises and multiple VPCs across accounts.

Step B: Creating a Direct Connect gateway and Transit Gateway in a central network account and connecting them via a transit VIF enables the on-premises network to access all connected VPCs.

Step D: Sharing the transit gateway with other accounts via AWS Resource Access Manager (RAM) allows the central TGW to attach VPCs in multiple accounts, simplifying multi-account connectivity.

Step F: To route cloud resources’ internet traffic back through the on-premises data center (for centralized egress), provisioning only private subnets and routing outbound internet traffic through NAT or firewall services in the data center is necessary. This requires configuring transit gateway and customer gateway routes appropriately.

Option A is partially correct in the use of Direct Connect gateway but association proposals are not scalable for hundreds of VPCs and accounts compared to transit gateway. Option C (internet gateway) is irrelevant here as traffic egress is required via on-premises data center, not directly to the internet. Option E (VPC peering) is not scalable for hundreds of VPCs.

Correct Approach:

AWS Security Groups:

Security groups operate at the instance level, making them the ideal tool for controlling access to specific resources such as an Amazon RDS database.

By default, security groups deny all incoming traffic. You can allow access by explicitly specifying another security group.

Associating an RDS database security group with the EC2 instances' security group ensures only the specified EC2 instances can access the RDS database.

Incorrect Options Analysis:

Option A: Using CIDR blocks for IP-based access is less secure and more difficult to manage. Additionally, Auto Scaling groups dynamically allocate IP addresses, making this approach impractical.

Option B: Network ACLs (NACLs) operate at the subnet level and are stateless. While NACLs can deny or allow traffic, they are not suited to application-specific access control.

Option D: Similar to Option B, using a NACL with CIDR ranges for EC2 IPs is difficult to manage and not application-specific.

To ensure high availability and scalability, the web application should run in anAuto Scaling groupacross two Availability Zones behind anApplication Load Balancer (ALB). The database should be migrated toAmazon RDSwithMulti-AZ deployment, which ensures fault tolerance and automatic failover in case of an AZ failure. This setup minimizes administrative overhead while meeting the company's requirements for high availability and scalability.

Option A: Read replicas are typically used for scaling read operations, and Multi-AZ provides better availability for a transactional database.

Option B: Replicating across AWS Regions adds unnecessary complexity for a single web application.

Option D: EC2 instances across three Availability Zones add unnecessary complexity for this scenario.

AWS References:

Auto Scaling Groups

Amazon RDS Multi-AZ

AWS documentation states that EC2 Auto Scaling is the recommended, cost-effective, and fault-tolerant method to manage workloads with predictable or varying demand. Auto Scaling automatically adds instances during peak traffic and terminates them when demand is low, reducing compute cost while maintaining availability across multiple Availability Zones.

Reserved Instances (Option B) would force the company to pay for peak capacity all day, which is not cost-effective.

Stopping instances manually (Option C) or vertically scaling instances (Option D) reduces fault tolerance and increases operational overhead.

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

Amazon FSx for Lustre is the ideal solution for high-performance computing (HPC) workloads that require parallel access to a shared file system with low latency. FSx for Lustre is designed specifically to meet the needs of such workloads, offering sub-millisecond latencies, which makes it well-suited for the 1 ms latency requirement mentioned in the question.

Here is why FSx for Lustre is the best fit:

Parallel File System: FSx for Lustre is a parallel file system that can scale across hundreds of Amazon EC2 instances, providing high throughput and low-latency access to data. It is optimized for processing large datasets in parallel, which is essential for HPC workloads.

Low Latency: FSx for Lustre is capable of providing access latencies well within 1 ms, making it ideal for performance-sensitive workloads like HPC.

Seamless Integration with Amazon S3: FSx for Lustre can be linked to an Amazon S3 bucket. This integration allows data to be imported from S3 into FSx for Lustre before the workload begins and exported back to S3 after processing. This feature is crucial for manual postprocessing because it enables engineers to access the dataset in S3 after processing.

Performance: FSx for Lustre is built for workloads that require high performance, such as machine learning, analytics, media processing, and financial simulations, which are typical for HPC environments.

In contrast:

Amazon EFS (Option A): While EFS provides shared file storage and scales across multiple EC2 instances, it does not offer the same level of performance or sub-millisecond latencies as FSx for Lustre. EFS is more suited for general-purpose workloads, not high-performance computing.

Mounting S3 as a file system (Option B and D): S3 is object storage, not a file system designed for low-latency access and parallel processing. Mounting S3 buckets directly or using AWS Resource Access Manager to share the bucket would not meet the low-latency (1 ms) or performance requirements needed for HPC workloads.

Therefore, Amazon FSx for Lustre (Option C) is the most appropriate and verified solution for this scenario.

AWS References:

Amazon FSx for Lustre

Best Practices for High Performance Computing (HPC)

Amazon FSx and Amazon S3 Integration

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.

A spread placement group is designed to deploy each instance on distinct underlying hardware, reducing the risk of simultaneous failures. By spreading instances across multiple Availability Zones, you achieve high availability and fault tolerance, meeting the 99.99% uptime requirement. Spread placement groups are ideal for critical applications that require maximum resilience to single hardware failures. Neither cluster nor partition strategies offer the same guarantee of separation combined with cross-AZ distribution.

Reference Extract from AWS Documentation / Study Guide:

"Spread placement groups are recommended for applications that have a small number of critical instances that should be kept separate from each other. Instances in a spread placement group are placed on distinct underlying hardware, and when deployed across multiple Availability Zones, provide high availability."

Source: AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Official Study Guide, Compute and High Availability section; Amazon EC2 Placement Groups Documentation.