Amazon Web Services SAP-C02 - AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional

The company should purchase the same Reserved Instances for an additional 3-year term with All Upfront payment. The company should purchase a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in the management account to cover any additional compute costs. This solution will provide the company with the most cost savings because Reserved Instances and Savings Plans are both pricing models that offer significant discounts compared to On-Demand pricing. Reserved Instances are commitments to use a specific instance type and size in a single Region for a one- or three-year term. You can choose between three payment options: No Upfront, Partial Upfront, or All Upfront. The more you pay upfront, the greater the discount1. Savings Plans are flexible pricing models that offer low prices on EC2 instances, Fargate, and Lambda usage, in exchange for a commitment to a consistent amount of usage (measured in $/hour) for a one- or three-year term. You can choose between two types of Savings Plans: Compute Savings Plans and EC2 Instance Savings Plans. Compute Savings Plans apply to any EC2 instance regardless of Region, instance family, operating system, or tenancy, including those that are part of EMR, ECS, or EKS clusters, or launched by Fargate or Lambda. EC2 Instance Savings Plans apply to a specific instance family within a Region and provide the most savings2. By purchasing the same Reserved Instances for an additional 3-year term with All Upfront payment, the company can lock in the lowest possible price for its EC2 instances that run continuously for 3 years. By purchasing a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in the management account, the company can benefit from additional discounts on any other compute usage across its member accounts.

The other options are not correct because:

Purchasing a 1-year Compute Savings Plan with No Upfront payment in each member account would not provide as much cost savings as purchasing a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in the management account. A 1-year term offers lower discounts than a 3-year term, and a No Upfront payment option offers lower discounts than an All Upfront payment option. Also, purchasing a Savings Plan in each member account would not allow the company to share the benefits of unused Savings Plan discounts across its organization.

Purchasing a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan with No Upfront payment in the management account to cover EC2 costs in each AWS Region would not provide as much cost savings as purchasing Reserved Instances for an additional 3-year term with All Upfront payment. An EC2 Instance Savings Plan offers lower discounts than Reserved Instances for the same instance family and Region. Also, a No Upfront payment option offers lower discounts than an All Upfront payment option.

Purchasing a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in each member account would not provide as much flexibility or cost savings as purchasing a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in the management account. An EC2 Instance Savings Plan applies only to a specific instance family within a Region and does not cover Fargate or Lambda usage. Also, purchasing aSavings Plan in each member account would not allow the company to share the benefits of unused Savings Plan discounts across its organization.

The best solution is to provision a new Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system that uses Max I/O performance mode and mount the EFS file system on each EC2 instance in the cluster. Amazon EFS is a fully managed, scalable, and elastic file storage service that supports the POSIX standard and can be accessed by multiple EC2 instances concurrently. Amazon EFS offers two performance modes: General Purpose and Max I/O. Max I/O mode is designed for highly parallelized workloads that can tolerate higher latencies than the General Purpose mode. Max I/O mode provides higher levels of aggregate throughput and operations per second, which are suitable for big data analytics applications. This solution meets all the requirements of the company. References: Amazon EFS Documentation, Amazon EFS performance modes

All features – The default feature set that is available to AWS Organizations. It includes all the functionality of consolidated billing, plus advanced features that give you more control over accounts in your organization. For example, when all features are enabled the management account of the organization has full control over what member accounts can do. The management account can apply SCPs to restrict the services and actions that users (including the root user) and roles in an account can access.https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_getting-started_concepts.html#feature-set

The correct answer is A.

A. This solution meets the requirements because it allows the company to create different usage plans for each customer, with different request quotas and time periods. The usage plans can be associated with API keys, which can be distributed to the users of each customer. The API Gateway REST API can invoke the Lambda function using a proxy integration, which passes the request data to the function as input and returns the function output as the response.This solution is scalable, secure, and cost-effective12

B. This solution is incorrect because API Gateway HTTP APIs do not support usage plans or API keys.These features are only available for REST APIs3

C. This solution is incorrect because it does not provide a way to enforce request quotas for each customer. Lambda function aliases can be used to create different versions of the function, but they do not have any quota mechanism.Moreover, this solution exposes the Lambda function URLs directly to the customers, which is not secure or recommended4

D. This solution is incorrect because it does not provide a way to differentiate between customers or users. AWS WAF rate-based rules can be used to limit requests based on IP addresses, but they do not support any other criteria such as user agents or headers.Moreover, this solution adds unnecessary complexity and cost by using an ALB and a VPC56

The company should create an Amazon Route 53 Resolver DNS Firewall domain list that contains the allowed domains. The company should configure a DNS Firewall rule group with a rule that has a high numeric value that blocks all requests. The company should configure a rule that has a low numeric value that allows requests for domains in the allowed list. The company should associate the rule group with the VPC. This solution will meet the requirements because Amazon Route 53 Resolver DNS Firewall is a feature that enables you to filter and regulate outbound DNS traffic for your VPC. You can create reusable collections of filtering rules in DNS Firewall rule groups and associate them with your VPCs. You can specify lists of domain names to allow or block, and you can customize theresponses for the DNS queries that you block1. By creating a domain list with the allowed domains and a rule group with rules to allow or block requests based on the domain list, the company can enforce its security policy and control access to sites.

The other options are not correct because:

Configuring a Route 53 outbound endpoint and associating it with the VPC would not help with filtering outbound DNS traffic. A Route 53 outbound endpoint is a resource that enables you to forward DNS queries from your VPC to your networkover AWS Direct Connect or VPN connections2.It does not provide any filtering capabilities.

Creating a Route 53 traffic flow policy to match the allowed domains would not help with filtering outbound DNS traffic. A Route 53 traffic flow policy is a resource that enables you to route traffic based on multiple criteria, such as endpoint health, geographic location, and latency3.It does not provide any filtering capabilities.

Creating a Gateway Load Balancer (GWLB) would not help with filtering outbound DNS traffic. A GWLB is a service that enables you to deploy, scale, and manage third-party virtual appliances such as firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and deep packet inspection systems in the cloud4.It does not provide any filtering capabilities.

This is a data residency and preventive governance problem. EU customer uploads must be routed to EU endpoints, processed by EU workloads, and stored only in EU Regions. Separate EU and non-EU stacks avoid commingling workloads and make residency controls enforceable. Route 53 geolocation routing is appropriate because the routing decision is based on user location, not latency. The critical control is an Organizations SCP that denies resource creation outside approved Regions. AWS documents region-deny patterns using the aws:RequestedRegion condition and AWS Control Tower Region deny controls to prevent actions outside governed Regions. AWS Config is detective, not preventive, so option C is too late. Latency-based routing can send EU users outside the EU, and a single global API design weakens the sovereignty boundary.

The company should use Migration Evaluator to generate a list of servers and build a report for a business case. The company should use AWS Migration Hub to view the portfolio and use AWS Application Discovery Service to gain an understanding of application dependencies. This solution will meet the requirements because Migration Evaluator is a migration assessment service that helps create a data-driven business case for AWS cloud planning and migration. Migration Evaluator provides a clear baseline of what the company is running today and projects AWS costs based on measured on-premises provisioning and utilization1. Migration Evaluator can use an agentless collector to conduct broad-based discovery or securely upload exports from existinginventory tools2. Migration Evaluator integrates with AWS Migration Hub, which is a service that provides a single location to track the progress of applicationmigrations across multiple AWS and partner solutions3. Migration Hub also supports AWS Application Discovery Service, which is a service that helps systems integrators quickly and reliably plan application migration projects by automatically identifying applications running in on-premises data centers, their associated dependencies, and their performance profile4.

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

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/migration-evaluator/latest/userguide/what-is.html

https://aws.amazon.com/migration-hub/

https://aws.amazon.com/application-discovery/

https://aws.amazon.com/server-migration-service/

https://aws.amazon.com/dms/

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/controltower/latest/userguide/what-is-control-tower.html

https://aws.amazon.com/application-migration-service/

https://aws.amazon.com/storagegateway/

(https://docs.aws.amazon.com/controltower/latest/userguide/strongly-recommended-guardrails.html)

AWS Organizations is a service that enables you to consolidate multiple AWS accounts into an organization that you create and centrally manage. By creating a management account and inviting all the existing accounts to join the organization, the solutions architect can track and consolidate expenditures for all the accounts using AWS Cost Management tools such as AWS Cost Explorer and AWS Budgets. An organizational unit (OU) is a group of accounts within an organization that can be used to apply policies and simplify management. A service control policy (SCP) is a type of policy that you can use to manage permissions in your organization. By creating an OU that includes all the development teams and applying an SCP that allows the creation of resources only in Regions that are in the United States, the solutions architect can ensure that the company meets its compliance requirements and avoids unwanted charges from other Regions. An IAM role is an identity with permission policies that determine what the identity can and cannot do in AWS. By creating an IAM role in the management account and allowing the finance team users to assume it, the solutions architect can give them access to view the Billing and Cost Management console without sharing credentials or creating additional users. References:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_introduction.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_manage_policies_scp.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/id_roles.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aws-cost-management/latest/userguide/what-is-costmanagement.html

because Amazon CloudFront considers the case of parameter names and values when caching based on query string parameters , thus inconsistent query strings may cause CloudFront to forward mixed-cased/misordered requests to the origin. Triggering a Lambda@Edge function based on a viewer request event to sort parameters by name and force them to be lowercase is the best choice. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/QueryStringParameters.html#query-string-parameters-optimizing-cachinghttps://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/lambda-cloudfront-trigger-events.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/lambda-examples.html#lambda-examples-normalize-query-string-parameters

CodeCommit may use S3 on the back end (and it also uses DynamoDB on the back end) but I don ' t think they ' re stored in buckets that you can see or point Macie to. In fact, there are even solutions out there describing how to copy your repo from CodeCommit into S3 to back it up:https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/patterns/automate-event-driven-backups-from-codecommit-to-amazon-s3-using-codebuild-and-cloudwatch-events.html

Dis the AWS best practice forsession storage: UseElastiCache for Redis— a fast, in-memory data store that handles high throughput with microsecond latency.

It ' s highly scalable, fault-tolerant, and optimized for temporary, fast-access session data.

Incorrect:

A: S3 is slow and object-based — not for session I/O.

B: FSx is Windows-only and not ideal for this use case.

C: EBS Multi-Attach has limitations, complexity, and is not suitable for high-performance shared memory.

The workload must be deployed to a second AWS Region to reduce latency for users while maintaining business continuity. Because more than 95% of operations are read operations, the database layer must efficiently support low-latency reads in multiple Regions without introducing complex replication logic or sacrificing availability.

Amazon Aurora MySQL global database is specifically designed for multi-Region deployments. It provides a single primary Region for writes and up to multiple secondary Regions with read-only replicas that use low-latency, storage-based replication. This architecture is well suited for read-heavy workloads because read traffic can be served locally in each Region while writes are centralized. Aurora global database also supports fast recovery and promotes a secondary Region in the event of a primary Region failure, which satisfies business continuity requirements.

Option A correctly migrates the existing RDS for MySQL database to an Aurora MySQL global database and deploys application infrastructure (ALB and Auto Scaling group) in the second Region. This enables applications in each Region to read from the closest Aurora replica, reducing read latency while preserving a managed, highly available database architecture.

To route users to the closest healthy Region, DNS-based traffic management is required. Route 53 latency-based routing directs users to the endpoint (ALB) with the lowest latency from their location. This directly addresses the requirement to reduce application latency while also supporting multi-Region availability.

Option C provides this routing capability by configuring latency-based routing with Route 53 and pointing records to both ALBs. Route 53 continuously evaluates latency and health checks to route traffic appropriately, which supports both performance and business continuity.

Option B is not sufficient because migrating to a separate Multi-AZ database in another Region does not provide a shared data layer or managed cross-Region replication. This would require custom replication and conflict resolution and does not maintain a single logical dataset across Regions. CloudFront improves content delivery for static assets but does not solve database read latency or data consistency.

Option D uses geolocation routing, which routes traffic based on user location rather than actual measured latency. This is less precise than latency-based routing and does not automatically adapt to changing network conditions or Region health.

Option E introduces Aurora Serverless v2, which is not designed for multi-Region global database replication. Aurora Serverless v2 focuses on scaling capacity within a Region, not on reducing latency across Regions or providing managed global read replicas.

Therefore, migrating to an Aurora MySQL global database and using Route 53 latency-based routing provides low-latency reads, high availability, and business continuity with minimal operational overhead.