Amazon Web Services Updated DOP-C02 Exam Questions and Answers by nuala

The latency in processing and ingesting logs can be caused by several factors, such as the throughput of the Kinesis data stream, the concurrency of the Lambda function, and the configuration of the event source mapping. To reduce the latency, the following steps can be taken:

Create a data stream consumer with enhanced fan-out. Set the Lambda function that processes the logs as the consumer. This will allow the Lambda function to receive records from the data stream with dedicated throughput of up to 2 MB per second per shard, independent of other consumers1. This will reduce the contention and delay in accessing the data stream.

Increase the ParallelizationFactor setting in the Lambda event source mapping. This will allow the Lambda service to invoke more instances of the function concurrently to process the records from the data stream2. This will increase the processing capacity and reduce the backlog of records in the data stream.

Configure reserved concurrency for the Lambda function that processes the logs. This will ensure that the function has enough concurrency available to handle the increased load from the data stream3. This will prevent the function from being throttled by the account-level concurrency limit.

The other options are not effective or may have negative impacts on the latency. Option D is not suitable because increasing the batch size in the Kinesis data stream will increase the amount of data that the Lambda function has to process in each invocation, which may increase the execution time and latency4. Option E is not advisable because turning off the ReportBatchItemFailures setting in the Lambda event source mapping will prevent the Lambda service from retrying the failed records, which may result in data loss. Option F is not necessary because increasing the number of shards in the Kinesis data stream will increase the throughput of the data stream, but it will not affect the processing speed of the Lambda function, which is the bottleneck in this scenario.

1: Using AWS Lambda with Amazon Kinesis Data Streams - AWS Lambda

2: AWS Lambda event source mappings - AWS Lambda

3: Managing concurrency for a Lambda function - AWS Lambda

4: AWS Lambda function scaling - AWS Lambda

AWS Lambda event source mappings - AWS Lambda

Scaling Amazon Kinesis Data Streams with AWS CloudFormation - Amazon Kinesis Data Streams

The correct answer is C.

Option A is incorrect because creating a new SCP that has two statements, one that allows access to the new range of IP addresses for all the S3 buckets and one that denies access to the old range of IP addresses for all the S3 buckets, is not a valid solution. SCPs are not resource-based policies, and they cannot specify the S3 buckets or the IP addresses as resources or conditions. SCPs can only control the actions that can be performed by the principals in the organization, not the access to specific resources. Moreover, setting a permissions boundary for the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role in the two OUs to deny access to the S3 buckets is not sufficient to revoke the permissions of the two OUs, as there might be other roles or users in those OUs that can still access the S3 buckets.

Option B is incorrect because creating a new SCP that has a statement that allows only the new range of IP addresses to access the S3 buckets is not a valid solution, for the same reason as option A. SCPs are not resource-based policies, and they cannot specify the S3 buckets or the IP addresses as resources or conditions. Creating another SCP that denies access to the S3 buckets and attaching it to the two OUs is also not a valid solution, as SCPs cannot specify the S3 buckets as resources either.

Option C is correct because it meets both requirements of changing the range of IP addresses that have permission to access the contents of the S3 buckets and revoking the permissions of two OUs in the company. On all the S3 buckets, configuring resource-based policies that allow only the new range of IP addresses to access the S3 buckets is a valid way to update the IP address ranges, as resource-based policies can specify both resources and conditions. Creating a new SCP that denies access to the S3 buckets and attaching it to the two OUs is also a valid way to revoke the permissions of those OUs, as SCPs can deny actions such as s3:PutObject or s3:GetObject on any resource.

Option D is incorrect because setting a permissions boundary for the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role in the two OUs to deny access to the S3 buckets is not sufficient to revoke the permissions of the two OUs, as there might be other roles or users in those OUs that can still access the S3 buckets. A permissions boundary is a policy that defines the maximum permissions that an IAM entity can have. However, it does not revoke any existing permissions that are granted by other policies.