Amazon Web Services DOP-C02 - AWS Certified DevOps Engineer - Professional

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Step A: Using a tool like CloudFormation resource import or IaC generator to scan and create a template from existing resources is efficient to bring current infrastructure under management.

Step C: UsingCodeConnections(AWS's solution to connect Git repositories) with AWS CodePipeline ensures any changes to CloudFormation templates in the Git repo automatically deploy infrastructure changes, enforcing infrastructure as code workflows.

Step E: Creating anIAM role with CloudFormation as the principalensures CloudFormation has permissions to manage resources. Using anSCP to deny all actions except by this roleenforces strict control, preventing manual changes outside the pipeline.Option B uses AWS Config which is more for compliance and auditing, not direct resource import. Option D is invalid because CloudFormation does not natively sync with Git; CodePipeline does. Option F is less secure than denying all except the IAM role.

The requirement is to create automation that deletes unattached EBS volumes that have been unattached for 14 days. To do this, the DevOps engineer needs to use the following steps:

Create an Amazon CloudWatch Events rule to execute an AWS Lambda function daily. CloudWatch Events is a service that enables event-driven architectures by delivering events from various sources to targets. Lambda is a service that lets you run code without provisioning or managing servers. By creating a CloudWatch Events rule that executes a Lambda function daily, the DevOps engineer can schedule a recurring task to check and delete unattached EBS volumes.

The Lambda function should find unattached EBS volumes and tag them with the current date, and delete unattached volumes that have tags with dates that are more than 14 days old. The Lambda function can use the EC2 API to list and filter unattached EBS volumes based on their state and tags. The function can then tag each unattached volume with the current date using the create-tags command. The function can also compare the tag value with the current date and delete any unattached volume that has been tagged more than 14 days ago using the delete-volume command.

A comprehensive and detailed explanation is:

Option A is correct because using batch writes to write multiple log events in a single write operation is a recommended practice for optimizing the performance and cost of data ingestion in Timestream. Batch writes can reduce the number of network round trips and API calls, and can also take advantage of parallel processing by Timestream. Batch writes can also improve the compression ratio of data in the memory store and the magnetic store, which can reduce the storage costs and improve the query performance1.

Option B is incorrect because writing each log event as a single write operation is not a recommended practice for optimizing the performance and cost of data ingestion in Timestream. Writing each log event as a single write operation would increase the number of network round trips and API calls, and would also reduce the compression ratio of data in the memory store and the magnetic store. This would increase the storage costs and degrade the query performance1.

Option C is incorrect because treating each log as a single-measure record is not a recommended practice for optimizing the query performance in Timestream. Treating each log as a single-measure record would result in creating multiple records for each timestamp, which would increase the storage size and the query latency. Moreover, treating each log as a single-measure record would require using joins to query multiple measures for the same timestamp, which would add complexity and overhead to the query processing2.

Option D is correct because treating each log as a multi-measure record is a recommended practice for optimizing the query performance in Timestream. Treating each log as a multi-measure record would result in creating a single record for each timestamp, which would reduce the storage size and the query latency. Moreover, treating each log as a multi-measure record would allow querying multiple measures for the same timestamp without using joins, which would simplify and speed up the query processing2.

Option E is incorrect because configuring the memory store retention period to be longer than the magnetic store retention period is not a valid option in Timestream. The memory store retention period must always be shorter than or equal to the magnetic store retention period. This ensures that data is moved from the memory store to the magnetic store before it expires out of the memory store3.

Option F is correct because configuring the memory store retention period to be shorter than the magnetic store retention period is a valid option in Timestream. The memory store retention period determines how long data is kept in the memory store, which is optimized for fast point-in-time queries. The magnetic store retention period determines how long data is kept in the magnetic store, which is optimized for fast analytical queries. By configuring these retention periods appropriately, you can balance your storage costs and query performance according to your application needs3.

The correct answer is B and E. Configuring a higher provisioned concurrency for the Lambda functions will ensure that the functions are ready to respond to the initial burst of requests without any cold start latency. Using Amazon RDS Proxy to create a proxy for the Aurora database will enable the Lambda functions to reuse existing database connections and reduce the overhead of establishing new ones. This will also improve the scalability and availability of the database by managing the connection pool size and handling failovers. Option A is incorrect because reserved concurrency only limits the number of concurrent executions for a function, not pre-warms them. Option C is incorrect because converting the DB cluster to an Aurora global database will not address the issue of database connection latency, and may introduce additional costs and complexity. Option D is incorrect because moving the code blocks that initialize database connections into the function handlers will not improve the performance or scalability of the Lambda functions, and may actually worsen the cold start latency. References:

AWS Lambda Provisioned Concurrency

Using Amazon RDS Proxy with AWS Lambda

Certified DevOps Engineer - Professional (DOP-C02) Study Guide (page 173)

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/codedeploy/latest/userguide/reference-appspec-file-structure-hooks.html#appspec-hooks-lambda

The Auto Scaling group service-linked role must have a specific grant in the source account in order to decrypt the encrypted AMI. This is because the service-linked role does not have permissions to assume the default IAM role in the source account.

The following steps are required to meet the requirements:

In the source account, copy the unencrypted AMI to an encrypted AMI. Specify the KMS key in the copy action.

In the source account, create a KMS grant that delegates permissions to the Auto Scaling group service-linked role in the target account.

In the source account, share the encrypted AMI with the target account.

In the target account, attach the KMS grant to the Auto Scaling group service-linked role.

The first three steps are the same as the steps that I described earlier. The fourth step is required to grant the Auto Scaling group service-linked role permissions to decrypt the AMI in the target account.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/mt/how-to-centrally-manage-aws-iot-greengrass-devices-using-aws-systems-manager/?force_isolation=true

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/managed-prefix-lists.html A managed prefix list is a set of one or more CIDR blocks. You can use prefix lists to make it easier to configure and maintain your security groups and route tables. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/sharing-managed-prefix-lists.html With AWS Resource Access Manager (AWS RAM), the owner of a prefix list can share a prefix list with the following: Specific AWS accounts inside or outside of its organization in AWS Organizations An organizational unit inside its organization in AWS Organizations An entire organization in AWS Organizations

The best solution is to use AWS Config and AWS Security Hub to identify and remediate noncompliant resources across multiple AWS accounts. AWS Config enables continuous monitoring of the configuration of AWS resources and evaluates them against desired configurations. AWS Config can also automatically remediate noncompliant resources by using conformance packs, which are a collection of AWS Config rules and remediation actions that can be deployed as a single entity. AWS Security Hub provides a comprehensive view of the security posture of AWS accounts and resources. AWS Security Hub can aggregate and normalize the findings from AWS Config and other AWS services, as well as from partner solutions. AWS Security Hub can also be used to create a dashboard for tracking noncompliant resources and events in a centralized location.

The other options are not optimal because they either require more development overhead, do not provide near real time detection and remediation, or do not provide a centralized dashboard for tracking.

Option A is not optimal because CloudFormation drift detection is not a near real time solution. Drift detection has to be manually initiated on each stack or resource, or scheduled using a cron expression. Drift detection also does not provide remediation actions, so a custom Lambda function has to be developed and invoked. CloudWatch Logs and dashboard can be used for tracking, but they do not provide a comprehensive view of the security posture of the AWS accounts and resources.

Option B is not optimal because CloudTrail logs analysis using Athena is not a near real time solution. Athena queries have to be manually run or scheduled using a cron expression. Athena also does not provide remediation actions, so a custom Lambda function has to be developed and invoked. Step Functions can be used to orchestrate the query and remediation workflow, but it adds more complexity and cost. QuickSight dashboard can be used for tracking, but it does not provide a comprehensive view of the security posture of the AWS accounts and resources.

Option D is not optimal because CloudTrail logs analysis using CloudWatch Logs is not a near real time solution. CloudWatch Logs filters have to be manually created or updated for each resource type and configuration change. CloudWatch Logs also does not provide remediation actions, so a custom Lambda function has to be developed and invoked. EventBridge can be used to trigger the Lambda function, but it adds more complexity and cost. OpenSearch Service dashboard can be used for tracking, but it does not provide a comprehensive view of the security posture of the AWS accounts and resources.

AWS Config conformance packs

Introducing AWS Config conformance packs

Managing conformance packs across all accounts in your organization

The correct answer is A.

A comprehensive and detailed explanation is:

Option A is correct because it meets the requirements with the most operational efficiency. Updating the ecommerce application to emit a JSON object to a CloudWatch log group for each processed transaction is a simple and cost-effective way to collect the data needed for the dashboard. Using CloudWatch Logs Insights to query the log group and to visualize the results in a pie chart format is also a convenient and integrated solution that leverages the existing CloudWatch dashboards. Attaching the results to the desired CloudWatch dashboard is straightforward and does not require any additional steps or services.

Option B is incorrect because it introduces unnecessary complexity and cost. Updating the ecommerce application to emit a JSON object to an Amazon S3 bucket for each processed transaction is a valid way to store the data, but it requires creating and managing an S3 bucket and its permissions. Using Amazon Athena to query the S3 bucket and to visualize the results in a pie chart format is also a valid way to analyze the data, but it incurs charges based on the amount of data scanned by each query. Exporting the results from Athena and attaching them to the desired CloudWatch dashboard is also an extra step that adds more overhead and latency.

Option C is incorrect because it uses AWS X-Ray for an inappropriate purpose. Updating the ecommerce application to use AWS X-Ray for instrumentation is a good practice for monitoring and tracing distributed applications, but it is not designed for aggregating product transaction details. Creating a new X-Ray subsegment and adding an annotation for each processed transaction is possible, but it would clutter the X-Ray service map and make it harder to debug performance issues. Using X-Ray traces to query the data and to visualize the results in a pie chart format is also possible, but it would require custom code and logic that are not supported by X-Ray natively. Attaching the results to the desired CloudWatch dashboard is also not supported by X-Ray directly, and would require additional steps or services.

Option D is incorrect because it introduces unnecessary complexity and cost. Updating the ecommerce application to emit a JSON object to a CloudWatch log group for each processed transaction is a simple and cost-effective way to collect the data needed for the dashboard, as in option A. However, creating an AWS Lambda function to aggregate and write the results to Amazon DynamoDB is redundant, as CloudWatch Logs Insights can already perform aggregation queries on log data. Creating a Lambda subscription filter for the log file is also redundant, as CloudWatch Logs Insights can already access log data directly. Attaching the results to the desired CloudWatch dashboard would also require additional steps or services, as DynamoDB does not support native integration with CloudWatch dashboards.