SAA-C03 Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate (SAA-C03)

This option is the most cost-effective and scalable way to allow the Lambda function in the primary account to access the EFS file system in the secondary account. VPC peering enables private connectivity between two VPCs without requiring gateways, VPN connections, or dedicated networkconnections. The Lambda function can use the VPC peering connection to mount the EFS file system as a local file system and access the files as needed. The solution does not incur additional data transfer or storage costs, and it leverages the existing EFS file system without duplicating or moving the data.

Option A is not cost-effective because it requires creating a new EFS file system and using AWS DataSync to copy the data from the original EFS file system. This would incur additional storage and data transfer costs, and it would not provide real-time access to the files.

Option C is not scalable because it requires creating a second Lambda function in the secondary account and configuring cross-account permissions to invoke it from the primary account. This would add complexity and latency to the solution, and it would increase the Lambda invocation costs.

Option D is not feasible because Lambda layers are not designed to store large amounts of data or provide file system access. Lambda layers are used to share common code or libraries across multiple Lambda functions. Moving the contents of the EFS file system to a Lambda layer wouldexceed the size limit of 250 MB for a layer, and it would not allow the Lambda function to read or write files to the layer. References:

What Is VPC Peering?

Using Amazon EFS file systems with AWS Lambda

What Are Lambda Layers?

This solution meets the following requirements:

It is operationally efficient, as it only requires one activation of the cost allocation tag and one creation of the cost report from the management account, which has access to all the member accounts’ data and billing preferences.

It is consistent, as it uses the AWS-defined cost allocation tag named department, which is automatically applied to resources when the company creates tags using the tagging policy enforced by AWS Organizations. This ensures that the tag name and value are the same across all the resources and accounts, and avoids any discrepancies or errors that might arise from user-defined tags.

It is informative, as it creates one cost report in Cost Explorer grouping by the tag name, and filters by EC2. This allows the accounting team to see the breakdown of EC2 consumption and costs by department, regardless of the AWS account. The team can also use other features of Cost Explorer, such as charts, filters, and forecasts, to analyze and optimize the spending.

AWS DataSync is a data transfer service that simplifies, automates, and accelerates moving data between on-premises storage systems and AWS storage services over the internet or AWS Direct Connect1. AWS DataSync can transfer data to Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, which is a fully managed file system that is accessible over the industry-standard Server Message Block (SMB) protocol. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server is builton Windows Server, delivering a wide range of administrative features suchas user quotas, end-user file restore, and Microsoft Active Directory (AD) integration2. This solution meets the requirements of the question because:

It can migrate more than 100 TB of data to AWS within a reasonable time frame, as AWS DataSync is optimized for high-speed and efficient data transfer1.

It can preserve the intricate directory structure and the millions of small files stored in deep hierarchies of subfolders, as AWS DataSync can handle complex file structures and metadata, such as file names, permissions, and timestamps1.

It can avoid changing the applications to access the data after migration, as Amazon FSx for Windows FileServer supports the same SMB protocol and Windows Server features that the company’s on-premises file storage uses2.

It can reduce the operational overhead, as AWS DataSync and Amazon FSx for Windows File Server are fully managed services that handle the tasks of setting up, configuring, and maintaining the data transfer and the file system12.

This option is the best solution because it allows the company to decouple the analytics software from the user requests and scale the EC2 instances dynamically based on the demand. By using Amazon SQS, the company can create a queue that stores the user requests and acts as a buffer between the users and the analytics software. This way, the software can process the requests at its own pace without losing any data or overloading the EC2 instances. By using EC2 Auto Scaling, the company cancreate an Auto Scaling group that launches or terminates EC2 instances automatically based on the size of the queue. This way, the company can ensure that there are enough instances to handle the load and optimize the cost and performance of the system. By updating the software to read from the queue, the company can enable the analytics software to consume the requests from the queue and process the data from Amazon S3.

A. Create a copy of the instance Place all instances behind an Application Load Balancer. This option is not optimal because it does not address the root cause of the problem, which is the high CPU utilization of the EC2 instances. An Application Load Balancer can distribute the incoming traffic across multiple instances, but it cannot scale the instances based on the load or reduce the processing time of the analytics software. Moreover, this option can incur additional costs for the load balancer and the extra instances.

B. Create an S3 VPC endpoint for Amazon S3 Update the software to reference the endpoint. This option is not effective because it does not solve the issue of the high CPU utilization of the EC2 instances. An S3 VPC endpoint can enable the EC2 instances to access Amazon S3 without going through the internet, which can improve the network performance and security. However, it cannot reduce the processing time of the analytics software or scale the instances based on the load.

C. Stop the EC2 instances. Modify the instance type to one with a more powerful CPU and more memory. Restart the instances. This option is not scalable because it does not account for the variability of the user load. Changing the instance type to a more powerful one can improve the performance of the analytics software, but it cannot adjust the number of instances based on the demand. Moreover, this option can increase the cost of the system and cause downtime during the instance modification.

Amazon RDS Proxy is designed to manage a large number of database connections from applications, especially serverless applications that can scale quickly. It improves application availability and scalability by pooling and sharing established database connections. This reduces the overhead of database connections and prevents overload during traffic spikes.

This option is the only solution that meets the requirements because it allows the company to encrypt the data with its own encryption keys and tools outside the AWS Cloud. By encrypting the data at the company’s data center before storing the data in the S3 bucket, the company can ensure that the data is encrypted in transit and at rest, and that the company has full control over the encryption keys and processes. This option also avoids the need to use any AWS encryption services or features, which may not be compatible with the company’s security policies or compliance standards.

A. Encrypt the data in the S3 bucket with server-side encryption (SSE) that uses an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) customer managed key. This option does not meet the requirements because it does not allow the company to manage the encryption keys outside the AWS Cloud. Although the company can create and use its own customer managed key in AWSKMS, the key is still stored and managed by AWS KMS, which is a service within the AWS Cloud. Moreover, the company still needs to use the AWS encryption features and APIs to encrypt and decrypt the data in the S3 bucket, which may not be compatible with the company’s security policies or compliance standards.

B. Encrypt the data in the S3 bucket with server-side encryption (SSE) that uses an AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) AWS managed key. This option does not meet the requirements because it does not allow the company to manage the encryption keys outside the AWS Cloud. In this option, the company uses the default AWS managed key in AWS KMS, which is created and managed by AWS on behalf of the company. The company has no control over the key rotation, deletion, or recovery policies. Moreover, the company still needs to use the AWS encryption features and APIs to encrypt and decrypt the data in the S3 bucket, which may not be compatible with the company’s security policies or compliance standards.

C. Encrypt the data in the S3 bucket with the default server-side encryption (SSE). This option does not meet the requirements because it does not allow the company to manage the encryption keys outside the AWS Cloud. In this option, the company uses the default server-side encryption with Amazon S3 managed keys (SSE-S3), which is applied to every bucket in Amazon S3. The company has no visibility or control over the encryption keys, which are managed by Amazon S3. Moreover, the company still needs to use the AWS encryption features and APIs to encrypt and decrypt the data in the S3 bucket, which may not be compatible with the company’s security policies or compliance standards.

AWS Fargate with Amazon ECS is a serverless, fully managed compute engine for containers. Fargate eliminates the need to provision or manage servers, and is ideal for periodic, long-running batch jobs. You only pay for the resources consumed during job execution, making it cost-effective for jobs that run infrequently. Lambda is not suitable because the maximum execution time is 15 minutes, but the job can take up to 2 hours.

AWS Documentation Extract:

“AWS Fargate lets you run containers without managing servers or clusters. Fargate is ideal for batch jobs, event-driven processing, and scheduled tasks that require hours of compute.”

(Source: AWS Fargate documentation)

A: Reserved Instances are cost-inefficient for infrequent workloads and require server management.

B: Lambda has a hard limit of 15 minutes per execution, insufficient for this job.

D: ECS on EC2 requires you to manage and provision EC2 instances, increasing cost and management overhead.

Using SQS as a buffer between S3 and the Lambda function ensures durability and allows for retries in case of processing failures. Messages in the queue can be retried by Lambda, and failed processing can be directed to a dead-letter queue for further inspection. This guarantees reliable and scalable message-driven processing.