Topic 4: Exam Pool D
A company is concerned that two NAT instances in use will no longer be able to support the traffic needed for the company’s application. A solutions architect wants to implement a solution that is highly available, fault tolerant, and automatically scalable. What should the solutions architect recommend?
A. Remove the two NAT instances and replace them with two NAT gateways in the same Availability Zone.
B. Use Auto Scaling groups with Network Load Balancers for the NAT instances in different Availability Zones.
C. Remove the two NAT instances and replace them with two NAT gateways in different Availability Zones.
D. Replace the two NAT instances with Spot Instances in different Availability Zones and deploy a Network Load Balancer.
Explanation: If you have resources in multiple Availability Zones and they share one NAT gateway, and if the NAT gateway’s Availability Zone is down, resources in the other Availability Zones lose internet access. To create an Availability Zone-independent architecture, create a NAT gateway in each Availability Zone and configure your routing to ensure that resources use the NAT gateway in the same Availability Zone.
A company wants to use the AWS Cloud to make an existing application highly available and resilient. The current version of the application resides in the company's data center. The application recently experienced data loss after a database server crashed because of an unexpected power outage. The company needs a solution that avoids any single points of failure. The solution must give the application the ability to scale to meet user demand. Which solution will meet these requirements?
A. Deploy the application servers by using Amazon EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group across multiple Availability Zones. Use an Amazon RDS DB instance in a Multi-AZ configuration.
B. Deploy the application servers by using Amazon EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group in a single Availability Zone. Deploy the database on an EC2 instance. Enable EC2 Auto Recovery.
C. Deploy the application servers by using Amazon EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group across multiple Availability Zones. Use an Amazon RDS DB instance with a read replica in a single Availability Zone. Promote the read replica to replace the primary DB instance if the primary DB instance fails.
D. Deploy the application servers by using Amazon EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group across multiple Availability Zones Deploy the primary and secondary database servers on EC2 instances across multiple Availability Zones Use Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) Multi-Attach to create shared storage between the instances.
Explanation: Deploy the application servers by using Amazon EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group across multiple Availability Zones. Use an Amazon RDS DB instance in a Multi-AZ configuration. To make an existing application highly available and resilient while avoiding any single points of failure and giving the application the ability to scale to meet user demand, the best solution would be to deploy the application servers using Amazon EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group across multiple Availability Zones and use an Amazon RDS DB instance in a Multi-AZ configuration. By using an Amazon RDS DB instance in a Multi-AZ configuration, the database is automatically replicated across multiple Availability Zones, ensuring that the database is highly available and can withstand the failure of a single Availability Zone. This provides fault tolerance and avoids any single points of failure.
A company runs a stateless web application in production on a group of Amazon EC2 On- Demand Instances behind an Application Load Balancer. The application experiences heavy usage during an 8-hour period each business day. Application usage is moderate and steady overnight Application usage is low during weekends. The company wants to minimize its EC2 costs without affecting the availability of the application. Which solution will meet these requirements?
A. Use Spot Instances for the entire workload.
B. Use Reserved instances for the baseline level of usage Use Spot Instances for any additional capacity that the application needs.
C. Use On-Demand Instances for the baseline level of usage. Use Spot Instances for any additional capacity that the application needs
D. Use Dedicated Instances for the baseline level of usage. Use On-Demand Instances for any additional capacity that the application needs
Explanation: Reserved is cheaper than on demand the company has. And it's meet the availabilty (HA) requirement as to spot instance that can be disrupted at any time. PRICING BELOW. On- Demand: 0% There’s no commitment from you. You pay the most with this option. Reserved : 40%-60%1-year or 3-year commitment from you. You save money from that commitment. Spot 50%-90% Ridiculously inexpensive because there’s no commitment from the AWS side.
A company has an on-premises MySQL database that handles transactional data. The company is migrating the database to the AWS Cloud. The migrated database must maintain compatibility with the company's applications that use the database. The migrated database also must scale automatically during periods of increased demand. Which migration solution will meet these requirements?
A. Use native MySQL tools to migrate the database to Amazon RDS for MySQL. Configure elastic storage scaling.
B. Migrate the database to Amazon Redshift by using the mysqldump utility. Turn on Auto Scaling for the Amazon Redshift cluster.
C. Use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) to migrate the database to Amazon Aurora. Turn on Aurora Auto Scaling.
D. Use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) to migrate the database to Amazon DynamoDB. Configure an Auto Scaling policy.
Explanation: To migrate a MySQL database to AWS with compatibility and scalability, Amazon Aurora is a suitable option. Aurora is compatible with MySQL and can scale automatically with Aurora Auto Scaling. AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) can be used to migrate the database from on-premises to Aurora with minimal downtime.
A company hosts a website analytics application on a single Amazon EC2 On-Demand Instance. The analytics software is written in PHP and uses a MySQL database. The analytics software, the web server that provides PHP, and the database server are all hosted on the EC2 instance. The application is showing signs of performance degradation during busy times and is presenting 5xx errors. The company needs to make the application scale seamlessly. Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
A. Migrate the database to an Amazon RDS for MySQL DB instance. Create an AMI of the web application. Use the AMI to launch a second EC2 On-Demand Instance. Use an Application Load Balancer to distribute the load to each EC2 instance.
B. Migrate the database to an Amazon RDS for MySQL DB instance. Create an AMI of the web application. Use the AMI to launch a second EC2 On-Demand Instance. Use Amazon Route 53 weighted routing to distribute the load across the two EC2 instances.
C. Migrate the database to an Amazon Aurora MySQL DB instance. Create an AWS Lambda function to stop the EC2 instance and change the instance type. Create an Amazon CloudWatch alarm to invoke the Lambda function when CPU utilization surpasses 75%.
D. Migrate the database to an Amazon Aurora MySQL DB instance. Create an AMI of the web application. Apply the AMI to a launch template. Create an Auto Scaling group with the launch template Configure the launch template to use a Spot Fleet. Attach an Application Load Balancer to the Auto Scaling group.
Explanation: Migrate the database to Amazon Aurora MySQL - this will let the DB scale on it's own; it'll scale automatically without needing adjustment. Create AMI of the web app and using a launch template - this will make the creating of any future instances of the app seamless. They can then be added to the auto scaling group which will save them money as it will scale up and down based on demand. Using a spot fleet to launch instances- This solves the "MOST cost-effective" portion of the question as spot instances come at a huge discount at the cost of being terminated at any time Amazon deems fit. I think this is why there's a bit of disagreement on this. While it's the most cost effective, it would be a terrible choice if amazon were to terminate that spot instance during a busy period.
A company wants to implement a backup strategy for Amazon EC2 data and multiple Amazon S3 buckets. Because of regulatory requirements, the company must retain backup files for a specific time period. The company must not alter the files for the duration of the retention period. Which solution will meet these requirements?
A. Use AWS Backup to create a backup vault that has a vault lock in governance mode. Create the required backup plan.
B. Use Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager to create the required automated snapshot policy.
C. Use Amazon S3 File Gateway to create the backup. Configure the appropriate S3 Lifecycle management.
D. Use AWS Backup to create a backup vault that has a vault lock in compliance mode. Create the required backup plan.
Explanation: AWS Backup is a fully managed service that allows you to centralize and automate data protection of AWS services across compute, storage, and database. AWS Backup Vault Lock is an optional feature of a backup vault that can help you enhance the security and control over your backup vaults. When a lock is active in Compliance mode and the grace time is over, the vault configuration cannot be altered or deleted by a customer, account/data owner, or AWS. This ensures that your backups are available for you until they reach the expiration of their retention periods and meet the regulatory requirements.
A company is planning to build a high performance computing (HPC) workload as a service solution that Is hosted on AWS A group of 16 AmazonEC2Ltnux Instances requires the lowest possible latency for node-to-node communication. The instances also need a shared block device volume for high-performing storage. Which solution will meet these requirements?
A. Use a duster placement group. Attach a single Provisioned IOPS SSD Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon E BS) volume to all the instances by using Amazon EBS Multi-Attach
B. Use a cluster placement group. Create shared 'lie systems across the instances by using Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS)
C. Use a partition placement group. Create shared tile systems across the instances by using Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS).
D. Use a spread placement group. Attach a single Provisioned IOPS SSD Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume to all the instances by using Amazon EBS Multi-Attach
Explanation: 1. lowest possible latency + node to node ==> cluster placement(must be within one AZ), so C, D out
2. For EBS Multi-Attach, up to 16 instances can be attached to a single volume==>we have 16 linux instance==>more close to A
3. "need a shared block device volume"==>EBS Multi-attach is Block Storage whereas EFS is File Storage==> B out
4. EFS automatically replicates data within and across 3 AZ==>we use cluster placement so all EC2 are within one AZ.
5. EBS Multi-attach volumes can be used for clients within a single AZ.
A company runs a production application on a fleet of Amazon EC2 instances. The application reads the data from an Amazon SQS queue and processes the messages in parallel. The message volume is unpredictable and often has intermittent traffic. This application should continually process messages without any downtime. Which solution meets these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
A. Use Spot Instances exclusively to handle the maximum capacity required.
B. Use Reserved Instances exclusively to handle the maximum capacity required.
C. Use Reserved Instances for the baseline capacity and use Spot Instances to handle additional capacity.
D. Use Reserved Instances for the baseline capacity and use On-Demand Instances to handle additional capacity.
Explanation: We recommend that you use On-Demand Instances for applications with short-term, irregular workloads that cannot be interrupted.
A company wants to direct its users to a backup static error page if the company's primary website is unavailable. The primary website's DNS records are hosted in Amazon Route 53. The domain is pointing to an Application Load Balancer (ALB). The company needs a solution that minimizes changes and infrastructure overhead. Which solution will meet these requirements?
A. Update the Route 53 records to use a latency routing policy. Add a static error page that is hosted in an Amazon S3 bucket to the records so that the traffic is sent to the most responsive endpoints.
B. Set up a Route 53 active-passive failover configuration. Direct traffic to a static error page that is hosted in an Amazon S3 bucket when Route 53 health checks determine that the ALB endpoint is unhealthy.
C. Set up a Route 53 active-active configuration with the ALB and an Amazon EC2 instance that hosts a static error page as endpoints. Configure Route 53 to send requests to the instance only if the health checks fail for the ALB.
D. Update the Route 53 records to use a multivalue answer routing policy. Create a health check. Direct traffic to the website if the health check passes. Direct traffic to a static error page that is hosted in Amazon S3 if the health check does not pass.
Explanation: This solution meets the requirements of directing users to a backup static error page if the primary website is unavailable, minimizing changes and infrastructure overhead. Route 53 active-passive failover configuration can route traffic to a primary resource when it is healthy or to a secondary resource when the primary resource is unhealthy. Route 53 health checks can monitor the health of the ALB endpoint and trigger the failover when needed. The static error page can be hosted in an S3 bucket that is configured as a website, which is a simple and cost-effective way to serve static content. Option A is incorrect because using a latency routing policy can route traffic based on the lowest network latency for users, but it does not provide failover functionality. Option C is incorrect because using an active-active configuration with the ALB and an EC2 instance can increase the infrastructure overhead and complexity, and it does not guarantee that the EC2 instance will always be healthy. Option D is incorrect because using a multivalue answer routing policy can return multiple values for a query, but it does not provide failover functionality.
A company is planning to move its data to an Amazon S3 bucket. The data must be encrypted when it is stored in the S3 bucket. Additionally, the encryption key must be automatically rotated every year. Which solution will meet these requirements with the LEAST operational overhead?
A. Move the data to the S3 bucket. Use server-side encryption with Amazon S3 managed encryption keys (SSE-S3). Use the built-in key rotation behavior of SSE-S3 encryption keys.
B. Create an AWS Key Management Service {AWS KMS) customer managed key. Enable automatic key rotation. Set the S3 bucket's default encryption behavior to use the customer managed KMS key. Move the data to the S3 bucket.
C. Create an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) customer managed key. Set the S3 bucket's default encryption behavior to use the customer managed KMS key. Move the data to the S3 bucket. Manually rotate the KMS key every year.
D. Encrypt the data with customer key material before moving the data to the S3 bucket. Create an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) key without key material. Import the customer key material into the KMS key. Enable automatic key rotation.
Explanation: SSE-S3 - is free and uses AWS owned CMKs (CMK = Customer Master Key). The encryption key is owned and managed by AWS, and is shared among many accounts. Its rotation is automatic with time that varies as shown in the table here. The time is not explicitly defined.
SSE-KMS - has two flavors:
AWS managed CMK. This is free CMK generated only for your account. You can only view it policies and audit usage, but not manage it. Rotation is automatic - once per 1095 days (3 years),
Customer managed CMK. This uses your own key that you create and can manage. Rotation is not enabled by default. But if you enable it, it will be automatically rotated every 1 year. This variant can also use an imported key material by you. If you create such key with an imported material, there is no automated rotation. Only manual rotation. SSE-C - customer provided key. The encryption key is fully managed by you outside of AWS. AWS will not rotate it.
This solution meets the requirements of moving data to an Amazon S3 bucket, encrypting the data when it is stored in the S3 bucket, and automatically rotating the encryption key every year with the least operational overhead. AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) is a service that enables you to create and manage encryption keys for your data. A customer managed key is a symmetric encryption key that you create and manage in AWS KMS. You can enable automatic key rotation for a customer managed key, which means that AWS KMS generates new cryptographic material for the key every year. You can set the S3 bucket’s default encryption behavior to use the customer managed KMS key, which means that any object that is uploaded to the bucket without specifying an encryption method will be encrypted with that key.
Option A is incorrect because using server-side encryption with Amazon S3 managed encryption keys (SSE-S3) does not allow you to control or manage the encryption keys. SSE-S3 uses a unique key for each object, and encrypts that key with a master key that is regularly rotated by S3. However, you cannot enable or disable key rotation for SSE-S3 keys, or specify the rotation interval. Option C is incorrect because manually rotating the KMS key every year can increase the operational overhead and complexity, and it may not meet the requirement of rotating the key every year if you forget or delay the rotation process. Option D is incorrect because encrypting the data with customer key material before moving the data to the S3 bucket can increase the operational overhead and complexity, and it may not provide consistent encryption for all objects in the bucket.
Creating a KMS key without key material and importing the customer key material into the KMS key can enable you to use your own source of random bits to generate your KMS keys, but it does not support automatic key rotation.
| Page 32 out of 83 Pages |
| Previous |
Copyright © - All Rights Reserved