Free Amazon Web Services SAP-C02 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

Updating the ingestion process to use Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose to save data to Amazon S3 will reduce the need for EC2 instances and EBS volumes for data storage1. Using AWS Batch with Spot Instances to perform nightly processing will leverage the cost savings of Spot Instances, which are up to 90% cheaper than On-Demand Instances2. AWS Batch will also handle the scheduling and scaling of the processing jobs. Setting the maximum Spot price to 50% of the On-Demand price will reduce the chances of interruption and ensure that the processing is cost-effective.

Converting VPC flow logs to store in Apache Parquet format and specifying hourly partitions significantly improves query performance and reduces storage space usage. Apache Parquet is a columnar storage file format optimized for analytical queries, allowing Athena to scan less data and improve query performance. Partitioning logs by hour further enhances query efficiency by limiting the amount of data scanned during queries, addressing the issue of degrading performance over time due to the growing volume of ingested logs.

AWS Documentation on VPC Flow Logs and Amazon Athena provides insights into configuring VPC flow logs in Apache Parquet format and using Athena for querying log data. This approach is recommended for efficient log analysis and storage optimization.

The modernized application needs to store and serve video files up to 4 GB. Large binary content should not be stored directly in a database because it negatively affects database performance, scaling, and backup/restore times. The standard AWS pattern is to store large objects in Amazon S3 and keep only references (such as keys or URLs) in the database.

User profile data is simple, text-based, and currently lives in a single table. This is a good fit for a key-value or document-style data model such as Amazon DynamoDB, which provides fully managed horizontal scaling and predictable performance at scale.

Option B migrates the profile table to DynamoDB using AWS DMS with AWS Schema Conversion Tool (SCT). Video files are stored as objects in Amazon S3, which is designed for large, durable, and highly scalable object storage. The DynamoDB item stores only the S3 key that corresponds to each user’s video, keeping the database small and responsive. S3 can scale rapidly and independently of the database, and offloads the heavy I/O load of large objects away from the transactional store, so overall application performance is not negatively impacted by video storage or retrieval.

Option A stores the videos as base64-encoded strings in a TEXT column in a relational database. Storing multi-gigabyte objects directly in a relational database table leads to large row sizes, larger indexes, longer backup times, and degraded performance as the table grows. This does not meet the requirement to avoid affecting application performance.

Option C uses Amazon Keyspaces (for Apache Cassandra) as the profile store and S3 for video. While storing videos in S3 is correct, Keyspaces is typically chosen when there is already a Cassandra-based workload or a need for Cassandra-compatible interfaces. For a simple single-table user profile store being migrated from MySQL, DynamoDB is the more natural, managed choice and aligns better with AWS migration and modernization guidance.

Option D stores the videos as base64-encoded strings in DynamoDB items. DynamoDB has a maximum item size of 400 KB, which is far smaller than the 4 GB video size requirement. This makes option D technically infeasible.

Therefore, migrating user profile data to DynamoDB and storing video files in Amazon S3, with S3 keys stored in the corresponding DynamoDB items (option B), provides scalable video storage and protects application performance.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/amazon-dynamodb-auto-scaling-performance-and-cost-optimization-at-any-scale/ "As you can see, there are compelling reasons to use DynamoDB auto scaling with actively changing traffic. Auto scaling responds quickly and simplifies capacity management, which lowers costs by scaling your table’s provisioned capacity and reducing operational overhead."

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vm-import/latest/userguide/vmimport-image-import.html

- Export an OVF Template

- Create / use an Amazon S3 bucket for storing the exported images. The bucket must be in the Region where you want to import your VMs.

- Create an IAM role named vmimport.

- You'll use AWS CLI to run the import commands.

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/import-instances/

The company has migrated an application to EC2 and will deploy it in an additional Region. The usage is expected to be stable for 3 years, but parts of the application will be redesigned over the next 2 years to use AWS Lambda. Therefore, the company will gradually shift a portion of its compute usage from EC2 to Lambda.

Savings Plans are a flexible pricing model that provide lower prices in exchange for a commitment to a consistent amount of compute usage (measured in dollars per hour) for a 1- or 3-year term. There are two main types of Savings Plans:

• Compute Savings Plans: Apply to any EC2 instance usage regardless of Region, instance family, OS, tenancy, and also apply to AWS Fargate and AWS Lambda usage.

• EC2 Instance Savings Plans: Apply only to a specific instance family in a specific Region.

In this scenario, because there will be a gradual migration from EC2-based compute to Lambda-based compute, a plan that only applies to EC2 (EC2 Instance Savings Plan) risks underutilization as more usage moves to Lambda. Compute Savings Plans, by contrast, can cover EC2 now and Lambda later, maintaining high utilization of the commitment and maximizing effective discount.

Option A recommends evaluating Savings Plans recommendations each year in AWS Cost Management and purchasing a 1-year Compute Savings Plan based on those recommendations. The Cost Management tools and Cost Explorer provide Savings Plans recommendations based on actual usage patterns. Buying 1-year Compute Savings Plans and re-evaluating annually allows the company to adjust its committed spend each year as portions of the application move from EC2 to Lambda. This approach maximizes the chance that the Savings Plans coverage matches the actual combined EC2 and Lambda usage over time and avoids being locked into an EC2-only commitment that becomes increasingly underutilized.

Option B is not optimal because it recommends a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan. That commitment applies only to specific EC2 instance families in a Region and does not apply to Lambda. As the company migrates portions of its workloads to Lambda, the EC2 Instance Savings Plan may become underutilized, reducing the effective discount and potentially increasing overall cost. Compute Optimizer also does not provide Savings Plans purchase recommendations; Savings Plans recommendations come from Cost Management and Cost Explorer.

Option C uses 1-year EC2 Instance Savings Plans and adjusts the commitment each year. While this gives some flexibility, EC2 Instance Savings Plans still do not apply to Lambda usage, so over time there is a risk of underutilizing the EC2 commitment as the Lambda portion grows. This does not maximize savings relative to Compute Savings Plans, which can cover both services.

Option D proposes a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan and suggests decreasing the hourly commitment during the term as workloads move to Lambda. However, Savings Plans commitments cannot be decreased during the term. The company would remain obligated to the original 3-year commitment even if EC2 usage drops, leading to wasted commitment.

Therefore, purchasing 1-year Compute Savings Plans each year based on Savings Plans recommendations from AWS Cost Management (option A) is the best strategy to maximize cost savings while the company transitions part of the workload from EC2 to Lambda.

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

The workload is a real-time leaderboard that needs extremely low latency: microsecond reads and single-digit millisecond writes. It also needs rapid failover (accepting writes in less than a minute after a primary node failure) and minimal operational overhead. Additionally, the data must be durable enough to persist and be used later for analytics through a data pipeline.

Amazon MemoryDB for Redis is a Redis-compatible, durable, in-memory database service designed for microsecond read latency and low-millisecond write latency while also providing durability through a distributed transaction log. MemoryDB is designed to be a primary database rather than a cache and supports Multi-AZ configurations with fast failover. These characteristics match the leaderboard’s latency requirements and the availability requirement to resume writes quickly after a failure. Because MemoryDB is fully managed, it has less operational overhead than running Redis on EC2.

Option C is the best choice because MemoryDB provides Redis compatibility, in-memory performance, Multi-AZ high availability, and durability that supports data persistence for downstream processing. The durability aspect is especially important for feeding analytics pipelines, because the data is not only cached but is retained as a database record.

Option A is not the best choice because Amazon ElastiCache for Redis is primarily used as a cache. While it can be configured for replication and can achieve low latency, it is not positioned as a durable primary data store in the same way as MemoryDB for Redis. For requirements that explicitly combine extremely low latency with persistence and database-like durability, MemoryDB is the more appropriate managed service with lower operational overhead than building custom durability mechanisms.

Option B is not suitable because Amazon RDS for MySQL typically cannot meet microsecond read latency, and write latencies are usually higher than single-digit milliseconds for non-trivial workloads. Also, read replicas do not provide multi-writer capability and do not ensure sub-minute write availability in all failure scenarios without additional architecture and failover handling.

Option D has the highest operational overhead because it requires the company to operate Redis on EC2: instance management, patching, scaling, replication, failover automation, monitoring, and backup/restore processes. This does not meet the requirement for the least operational overhead compared to fully managed services.

Therefore, an Amazon MemoryDB cluster in Multi-AZ mode provides the required ultra-low latency, rapid failover for write availability, durability for persistence, and least operational overhead.

https://aws.amazon.com/migration-evaluator/features/

B. Add an outbound rule to the EC2 instances' security group. Specify the DB cluster's security group as the destination over the default Aurora port. This allows theinstances to make outbound connections to the DB cluster on the default Aurora port. C. Add an inbound rule to the DB cluster's security group. Specify the EC2 instances' security group as the source over the default Aurora port. This allows connections to the DB cluster from the EC2 instances on the default Aurora port.

The best solution is to turn on the Concurrency Scaling feature for the Amazon Redshift cluster. This feature allows the cluster to automatically add additional capacity to handle bursts of read queries without affecting the performance of write queries. The additional capacity is transparent to the users and is billed separately based on the usage. This solution meets the business requirements of servicing read and write queries at all times andis also cost-effective compared to the other options, which involve provisioning additional resources or resizing the cluster. References: Amazon Redshift Documentation, Concurrency Scaling in Amazon Redshift

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2017/11/announcing-support-for-inter-region-vpc-peering/

On-demand capacity mode is the function of Dynamodb.https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/news/running-spiky-workloads-and-optimizing-costs-by-more-than-90-using-amazon-dynamodb-on-demand-capacity-mode/

Amazon DocumentDB Elastic Clustershttps://aws.amazon.com/blogs/news/announcing-amazon-documentdb-elastic-clusters/

Deploy Amazon EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group across multiple Availability Zones for the Java backend application. This will provide high availability and scalability, while allowing the company to retain the same database structure as the original application.

B: Archiving inactive user uploads toGlacier Deep Archiveoffers the lowest storage cost.

E: Since the users are in Europe only, usingPrice Class 200reduces CloudFront delivery cost without affecting performance.

A (expiration) deletes data — not suitable.

C is invalid (App Runner does not support Spot).

D might save little unless read traffic is high.

This solution will meet the requirements of making the application highly available with the least development time. Creating a new AMI that is configured with SSM Agent will enable the company to use AWS Systems Manager to manage and patch the EC2 instances automatically, reducing downtime and human errors. Using a launch template for an Auto Scaling group will allow the company to launch multiple instances of the same configuration and scale them up or down based on demand. Using smaller instances in the Auto Scaling group will reduce the cost and improve the performance of the application tier. Creating an Application Load Balancer to distribute traffic across the instances in the Auto Scaling group will increase the availability and fault tolerance of the application tier. Migrating the database to Amazon Aurora MySQL will provide a fully managed, compatible, and scalable relational database service that can handle high throughput and concurrent connections.