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

Why Option A is Correct:

ElastiCache for Redis: Provides persistent, scalable caching for in-progress transactions and SQL queries. Redis supports data durability and advanced features, making it suitable for transactional workloads.

Integration with Aurora: Easily integrates with the Aurora cluster to improve query performance.

Why Other Options Are Not Ideal:

Option B: CloudFront and S3 are unsuitable for transactional caching. EC2 instance store volumes are ephemeral and lack persistence.

Option C: Memcached does not offer persistence or advanced transactional support, unlike Redis.

Option D: Combining Redis with EC2 instance store is unnecessary; Redis alone meets all caching requirements.

AWS References:

Amazon ElastiCache:AWS Documentation - ElastiCache

Amazon S3 Access Points simplify managing data access for shared datasets in S3 by allowing the creation of distinct access policies for different applications or users. Each access point has its own policy and can be managed independently. This method avoids overloading a single bucket policy and helps remain within policy size limits.

Option D provides a scalable and operationally efficient solution by offloading individual access controls from a central bucket policy to individually managed access points, which is ideal for environments with many consuming applications.

Background Jobs with Event Invocation Type:

The Event invocation type is asynchronous, meaning the Lambda function does not send an immediate result to the API Gateway and processes the request in the background. This is ideal for video encoding tasks that take time.

REST API vs. HTTP API:

REST APIs support advanced features like API keys, request validation, and throttling that HTTP APIs do not support fully.

Since the developer needs API keys and request validations, a REST API is the correct choice.

Integration with Lambda:

AWS Lambda integration is seamless with REST APIs, and using the Event invocation ensures asynchronous processing.

Incorrect Options Analysis:

Option A: HTTP API lacks full support for API keys and validation.

Option CandD: RequestResponse invocation type requires immediate responses, unsuitable for background jobs.

The issue in this case is related to the processing tier, where EC2 instances are overwhelmed at peak times, causing delays.Option D, using anAmazon EC2 Auto Scaling target tracking policybased on theApproximateNumberOfMessagesin the SQS queue, is the best solution.

Auto Scaling with Target Tracking:

Target tracking policiesdynamically scale out or in based on a specific metric. For this use case, you can monitor theApproximateNumberOfMessagesin the SQS queue. When the number of messages (orders) in the queue increases, the Auto Scaling group will scale out more EC2 instances to handle the additional load, ensuring that the queue doesn’t build up and cause delays.

This solution is ideal for handling variable and unpredictable peak times, as Auto Scaling can automatically adjust based on real-time load rather than scheduled times.

Why Not the Other Options?:

Option A (Scheduled Scaling): Scheduled scaling works well for predictable peak times, but this company experiencesunpredictable peak usage, making scheduled scaling less effective.

Option B (ElastiCache for Redis): Adding a caching layer would help if DynamoDB were the bottleneck, but in this case, the issue is CPU overload on EC2 instances in the processing tier.

Option C (CloudFront): CloudFront would help cache static content from the web tier, but it wouldn’t resolve the issue of the processing tier’s overloaded EC2 instances.

AWS References:

Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling Target Tracking

Amazon SQS ApproximateNumberOfMessages