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

Why Option C is Correct:

NAT Gateway: Allows private subnets to access the internet for outbound requests while preventing inbound connections.

High Availability: Deploying NAT gateways in both AZs ensures fault tolerance.

Shared Route Table: Simplifies routing configuration for private subnets.

Why Other Options Are Not Ideal:

Option A: Creating separate route tables for each subnet adds unnecessary complexity.

Option B: Internet gateways allow inbound access, violating the requirement to block public IPv4 access.

Option D: Egress-only internet gateways are designed for IPv6, not IPv4.

AWS References:

Amazon VPC NAT Gateway:AWS Documentation - NAT Gateway

The best solution to query and filter S3 data directly without downloading the full object is to use Amazon Athena.

Amazon Athena is an interactive query service that lets you use SQL to analyze structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data directly in Amazon S3, without needing to move or transform the data.

It supports formats like CSV, JSON, ORC, Parquet, and Avro and integrates with AWS Glue Data Catalog for schema management.

Athena is serverless, meaning there’s no infrastructure to manage, and it's billed per query, which keeps it cost-effective.

Option B (EMR) is heavier and requires managing a cluster.

Option C (API Gateway) is not suited for querying S3 datasets.

Option D (ElastiCache) is a memory store, not a query engine.

🔗 Reference:

What is Amazon Athena?

Amazon EBS io2 Block Express volumes are designed to deliver sub-millisecond latency and up to 256,000 IOPS per volume, with durability and high availability. This makes io2 Block Express the recommended choice for workloads requiring very high and predictable IOPS, such as enterprise databases and high-transaction-rate applications.

Reference Extract:

"EBS io2 Block Express volumes deliver up to 256,000 IOPS and sub-millisecond latency, supporting high-performance, high-durability workloads."

Source: AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Official Study Guide, EBS Performance section.

The most resilient and scalable architecture for handling millions of high-resolution images with frequent updates is to store the binary images in Amazon S3 and store their metadata or reference (geographic code and S3 URL) in Amazon DynamoDB.

From AWS Documentation:

“Store large objects like images in Amazon S3 and use Amazon DynamoDB to store metadata and references. This design pattern is scalable, highly available, and cost-effective.”

(Source: AWS Architecture Blog – Best Practices for Handling Large Objects)

Why B is correct:

Amazon S3 is designed for storing large volumes of binary data (images).

DynamoDB provides low-latency reads/writes using the geographic code as the partition key.

Highly available, serverless, and auto-scaling, suitable for disaster scenarios with bursts of activity.

Reduces pressure on the database layer by separating metadata from image storage.

Why the others are incorrect:

Option A and D: Storing images directly in RDS is expensive, unscalable, and not optimal for binary storage.

Option C: DynamoDB is suitable, but storing actual binary image data in DynamoDB is not best practice due to item size limits (400 KB) and performance concerns.

TheAWS_PROXY integration with Amazon API Gatewayallows the API to invoke a Lambda function synchronously, making it a suitable solution for the custom authorization mechanism and text translation use case.

Synchronous Invocation: The API Gateway REST API with AWS_PROXY integration enables synchronous processing of HTTP requests and responses, which is required for document translation.

Custom Authorization: API Gateway supports custom authorizers for fine-grained access control.

Lambda Function Execution: Although Lambda's execution time limit is 15 minutes, this is sufficient for the 6-minute document translation requirement.

Why Other Options Are Not Ideal:

Option B:

Introducing a Lambda function URL to invoke another Lambda function unnecessarily complicates the architecture.Not efficient.

Option C:

Asynchronous invocation cannot guarantee real-time response delivery for document translation tasks.Not suitable.

Option D:

Hosting the API on an EC2 instance increases operational overhead. HTTP PROXY integration does not add significant benefits here.Not cost-effective or efficient.

AWS References:

API Gateway Lambda Proxy Integration:AWS Documentation - Proxy Integration

Custom Authorization in API Gateway:AWS Documentation - Custom Authorization

Option Aallows importing your own encryption keys into AWS KMS, ensuring control over key material.

Option Duses S3 Glacier with SSE-C, where the customer controls the encryption keys, meeting compliance needs.

Option Buses AWS-managed key material, violating the requirement for key material control.

Option C and Eare not fully compliant with the control requirement.

The first step is to configure a delegated administrator account for IAM Access Analyzer at the organization level. Only after delegating the administrator account can you aggregate Access Analyzer findings from all member accounts into a designated audit account. This must be set up in the AWS Organizations management account.

AWS Documentation Extract:

“You must designate a delegated administrator for IAM Access Analyzer at the organization level. The delegated administrator account aggregates findings from all member accounts.”

(Source: IAM Access Analyzer documentation)

A, C, D: These steps do not establish the organization-wide aggregation required for Access Analyzer.

Why Option B is Correct:

AWS WAF: Provides a simple way to create geographic match rules to block or allow traffic based on country IP ranges.

Least Operational Overhead: Attaching the WAF rule to the ALB ensures centralized control without modifying ACLs or instance firewalls.

Why Other Options Are Not Ideal:

Option A: Network ACLs operate at the subnet level and can become complex to manage for dynamic or evolving IP ranges.

Option C: Managing IP-based rules in security groups and ACLs lacks scalability and does not provide country-based filtering.

Option D: Configuring host-based firewalls increases operational overhead and does not leverage AWS-managed solutions.

AWS References:

AWS WAF Geomatch:AWS Documentation - WAF Geomatch