Data-Engineer-Associate Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate (DEA-C01)

Reserved concurrency allows you to dedicate a portion of your account’s available concurrency to a specific Lambda function. This ensures that the function always has sufficient capacity, regardless of how many other functions are running. It ' s more cost-effective than provisioned concurrency, which reserves warm environments at a higher cost.

“You can use reserved concurrency to guarantee that your critical Lambda functions have the capacity to run as needed without being throttled by other functions.”

– Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

Provisioned concurrency would be overkill unless latency is also a concern for cold starts, which isn’t stated in this case.

Options B and D are correct. AWS Prescriptive Guidance states that shuffle is a major cause of Spark performance issues and can exhaust local disk space on executors, leading to “No space left on device” failures. AWS specifically recommends assessing shuffle performance in CloudWatch metrics and in the Spark UI, and for data skew, it says to examine metrics in the Spark UI, including task duration and spill behavior across executors. That makes B the correct low-cost way to identify the source of the problem.

For remediation, AWS Glue documentation states that Spark can throw “No space left on device” when there is insufficient local disk on the executor, and that you can use Amazon S3 to store Spark shuffle data by enabling the AWS Glue Spark shuffle plugin. The S3 shuffle approach is specifically presented as a way to run shuffle-intensive jobs more reliably when they are bound by local disk capacity. In skew scenarios, using a skew-mitigation technique such as salting is also a standard way to distribute hot keys more evenly. That makes D the most cost-effective corrective step.

Options A and C increase cost by adding capacity before diagnosing or directly fixing the shuffle bottleneck. Option E is less precise than the Spark UI and Glue metrics for identifying skew.

Option C is correct because Amazon Redshift data sharing is built for exactly this use case: providing live, immediate, read-only access to data across Redshift clusters and AWS accounts without copying or moving the data. AWS states that data sharing lets you share live data “without having to create a copy or move it,” and that users can access the most up-to-date and consistent information as it is updated in the producer cluster. AWS also documents that data sharing provides instant, granular, and high-performance access across Amazon Redshift clusters and AWS accounts, which directly matches the requirement to preserve current Redshift performance. Since the downstream clusters use RA3 nodes, they satisfy the node-family requirement commonly associated with Redshift data sharing scenarios.

Option A would move the data to S3 and query it through Spectrum, which changes the performance profile and does not maintain native Redshift performance characteristics as well as direct Redshift data sharing. Option B introduces delay and duplicated storage through ETL copies. Option D is not an appropriate method for synchronizing Redshift datasets between clusters. Therefore, Redshift data sharing is the most direct, immediate, and performance-preserving solution.

 AWS DataSync is an online data movement and discovery service that simplifies and accelerates data migrations to AWS as well as moving data to and from on-premises storage, edge locations, other cloud providers, and AWS Storage services1. AWS DataSync can copy data to and from various sources and targets, including Amazon S3, and handle files in multiple formats. AWS DataSync also supports incremental transfers, meaning it can detect and copy only the changes to the data, reducing the amount of data transferred and improving the performance. AWS DataSync can automate and schedule the transfer process using triggers, and monitor the progress and status of the transfers using CloudWatch metrics and events1.

AWS DataSync is the most operationally efficient way to transfer the data in this scenario, as it meets all the requirements and offers a serverless and scalable solution. AWS Glue, AWS Direct Connect, and Amazon S3 Transfer Acceleration are not the best options for this scenario, as they have some limitations or drawbacks compared to AWS DataSync. AWS Glue is a serverless ETL service that can extract, transform, and load data from various sources to various targets, including Amazon S32. However, AWS Glue is not designed for large-scale data transfers, as it has some quotas and limits on the number and size of files it can process3. AWS Glue also does not support incremental transfers, meaning it would have to copy the entire data set every time, which would be inefficient and costly.

AWS Direct Connect is a service that establishes a dedicated network connection between your on-premises data center and AWS, bypassing the public internet and improving the bandwidth and performance of the data transfer. However, AWS Direct Connect is not a data transfer service by itself, as it requires additional services or tools to copy the data, such as AWS DataSync, AWS Storage Gateway, or AWS CLI. AWS Direct Connect also has some hardware and location requirements, and charges you for the port hours and data transfer out of AWS.

Amazon S3 Transfer Acceleration is a feature that enables faster data transfers to Amazon S3 over long distances, using the AWS edge locations and optimized network paths. However, Amazon S3 Transfer Acceleration is not a data transfer service by itself, as it requires additional services or tools to copy the data, such as AWS CLI, AWS SDK, or third-party software. Amazon S3 Transfer Acceleration also charges you for the data transferred over the accelerated endpoints, and does not guarantee a performance improvement for every transfer, as it depends on various factors such as the network conditions, the distance, and the object size. References:

AWS DataSync

AWS Glue

AWS Glue quotas and limits

[AWS Direct Connect]

[Data transfer options for AWS Direct Connect]

[Amazon S3 Transfer Acceleration]

[Using Amazon S3 Transfer Acceleration]

AWS Lake Formation is specifically designed to simplify fine-grained access control for data lakes stored in Amazon S3. By using Lake Formation tag-based access control (LF-TBAC), administrators can define access policies once and apply them dynamically based on tags rather than managing individual IAM policies.

LF-Tags can be assigned to databases, tables, and columns in the AWS Glue Data Catalog. Departments are granted permissions based on tags, ensuring that each department can access only the data it is authorized to view. This approach scales efficiently as datasets and departments grow, which is critical for data lakes ingesting millions of records daily.

Managing IAM policies per department is operationally complex and error-prone. Redshift-based access centralization limits flexibility and introduces unnecessary infrastructure. Syncing data into an RDS database adds cost, latency, and maintenance overhead.

Lake Formation provides centralized governance, auditing, and least-privilege enforcement with minimal administrative effort, making it the optimal solution.

Problem Analysis:

Millions of 1 KB JSON files in S3 are being processed and converted to Apache Parquet format using AWS Glue.

Processing time is increasing due to the additional testing facilities.

The goal is to reduce processing time while using the existing AWS Glue framework.

Key Considerations:

AWS Glue offers the dynamic frame file-grouping feature, which consolidates small files into larger, more efficient datasets during processing.

Grouping smaller files reduces overhead and speeds up processing.

Solution Analysis:

Option A: Lambda for File Grouping

Using Lambda to group files would add complexity and operational overhead. Glue already offers built-in grouping functionality.

Option B: AWS Glue Dynamic Frame File-Grouping

This option directly addresses the issue by grouping small files during Glue job execution.

Minimizes data processing time with no extra overhead.

Option C: Redshift COPY Command

COPY directly loads raw files but is not designed for pre-processing (conversion to Parquet).

Option D: Amazon EMR

While EMR is powerful, replacing Glue with EMR increases operational complexity.

Final Recommendation:

Use AWS Glue dynamic frame file-grouping for optimized data ingestion and processing.

AWS Glue Dynamic Frames

Optimizing Glue Performance

The correct answer is to configure AWS Glue triggers to run the ETL jobs every hour and use AWS Glue connections to establish connectivity between the data sources and Amazon Redshift. AWS Glue triggers are a way to schedule and orchestrate ETL jobs with the least operational overhead. AWS Glue connections are a way to securely connect to data sources and targets using JDBC or MongoDB drivers. AWS Glue DataBrew is a visual data preparation tool that does not support MongoDB as a data source. AWS Lambda functions are a serverless option to schedule and run ETL jobs, but they have a limit of 15 minutes for execution time, which may not be enough for complex transformations. The Redshift Data API is a way to run SQL commands on Amazon Redshift clusters without needing a persistent connection, but it does not support loading data from AWS Glue ETL jobs. References:

AWS Glue triggers

AWS Glue connections

AWS Glue DataBrew

[AWS Lambda functions]

[Redshift Data API]

Option A minimizes administration because it keeps one base IAM role for the pipeline and enforces regional locality at session time by attaching a session policy when the broker calls AssumeRole. This aligns with the security best practice of applying only what is necessary, because permissions should be limited to the exact scope required for the session. The material explicitly emphasizes the principle of least privilege, stating that permissions “should apply only to what is necessary,” and the most appropriate approach is to grant only the minimum actions needed for the job.

With session policies, the organization avoids creating and maintaining separate per-Region roles (Option B), avoids managing users and group memberships for federated sessions (Option C), and avoids individually attaching policies per engineer (Option D). Instead, the broker can dynamically apply a Region-specific restriction for each login, ensuring the temporary credentials are valid only for the engineer’s working Region. This design reduces ongoing operational burden while still enforcing strict locality controls through temporary, scoped credentials and least-privilege boundaries.