Amazon Web Services Updated SAA-C03 Exam Questions and Answers by amari

The company wants to move from an on-premises Docker environment to fully managed AWS services with persistent storage. The best fit is:

Amazon ECS with AWS Fargate launch type: This is a serverless container orchestration solution where AWS manages the underlying infrastructure, removing the need to manage EC2 or Kubernetes nodes.

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System): This is a fully managed, scalable, and shared file system for use with ECS tasks. It supports persistent storage for containers, replacing the local volumes used on-premises.

This combination (ECS + Fargate + EFS) is fully managed and requires no manual server maintenance.

Option A uses EKS with self-managed nodes, which is not fully managed.

Option C (DynamoDB) is for structured key-value storage, not for persistent file storage.

Option D uses ECS with EC2 launch type, which is not serverless and requires managing instances.

???? Reference:

Using Amazon ECS with AWS Fargate

Mounting EFS volumes in ECS tasks

Amazon FSx for Lustreis a high-performance, fully managed file system that is ideal for applications requiring low-latency access to shared storage, especially in use cases like gaming where high throughput and low latency are essential. It integrates easily with EC2 instances, providing fast and scalable shared storage, and supports custom protocols for specific application needs.

Option A (FSx File Gateway): FSx File Gateway is designed for hybrid cloud storage and is not suited for high-performance gaming workloads.

Option B (EC2 Windows instance): Setting up a file share on a Windows instance would introduce additional administrative overhead and would not provide the necessary performance.

Option C (EFS with Lustre): While Lustre is integrated with FSx, EFS does not natively support Lustre.

AWS References:

Amazon FSx for Lustre

Comprehensive and Detailed 250 to 300 words of Explanation (AWS documentation-based, no links):

The company wants to increase security and reduce operational overhead for SQL Server relational databases. The most direct AWS managed service for SQL Server is Amazon RDS for SQL Server, which offloads routine database administration tasks such as provisioning, backups, patching (within managed service controls), monitoring integrations, and high availability management compared with running SQL Server on self-managed EC2.

Choosing Multi-AZ enhances availability and resilience by maintaining a synchronous standby in a separate Availability Zone with automated failover. This improves overall security posture and operational reliability because the platform handles common infrastructure failure scenarios without requiring custom clustering or manual intervention.

For encryption of sensitive data, integrating RDS with AWS KMS allows encryption at rest using KMS keys. Using an AWS managed key is operationally simple while still providing strong encryption controls, auditability, and centralized key management.

Option A still requires managing the database on EC2 (OS patching, SQL Server patching, backups, HA design, monitoring, recovery), which increases operational overhead significantly. Option C is not a database migration approach; S3 plus Macie does not provide a relational SQL Server engine for applications. Option D changes the data model by moving to DynamoDB and does not preserve SQL Server relational capabilities; CloudWatch Logs is not a data security control for database content.

Therefore, B best satisfies the goals: a managed relational database service (RDS for SQL Server) with built-in high availability (Multi-AZ) and encryption at rest via KMS, reducing ongoing operational work while improving security controls.

Amazon S3 File Gateway (AWS Storage Gateway) exposes an on-premises NFS/SMB file share that durably stores files as S3 objects with local caching, enabling low-latency writes on-premises and asynchronous, near-real-time ingestion into Amazon S3 for analytics. It is purpose-built to “present a file interface backed by Amazon S3” and to “store files as objects in your S3 buckets,” so existing applications writing to a network share can transparently land data in S3 without custom scripts or job orchestration. Compared with scheduled transfers (e.g., end-of-day DataSync), S3 File Gateway continuously uploads new/changed files, better meeting the near-real-time requirement. Transfer Family (SFTP) would require custom polling and client changes, increasing operational burden. DataSync is excellent for bulk or periodic migrations/synchronizations but is not as seamless for continuous ingestion from a live file share. Therefore, updating the application to point to an S3 File Gateway share provides the simplest, performant path to near-real-time delivery into S3 for downstream analytics.