Amazon Web Services Updated SAP-C02 Exam Questions and Answers by macie

Option D is the most appropriate solution as it addresses all the specified requirements:

Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL supports native spatial data types through the PostGIS extension, making it suitable for handling spatial data migrated from Oracle databases.

AWS Schema Conversion Tool (SCT) and AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) can be used to migrate data from on-premises Oracle databases to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL, facilitating the transition while preserving data integrity.

Cron jobs can be scheduled directly on the PostgreSQL DB instance to handle maintenance tasks, aligning with the company's existing maintenance practices.

AWS Direct Connect provides a dedicated network connection between the on-premises environment and AWS, enabling secure and efficient querying of on-premises databases as foreign tables from the RDS instance.

This solution ensures compatibility with spatial data, maintains existing maintenance workflows, and provides a secure and efficient connection to on-premises systems.

The company has migrated an application to EC2 and will deploy it in an additional Region. The usage is expected to be stable for 3 years, but parts of the application will be redesigned over the next 2 years to use AWS Lambda. Therefore, the company will gradually shift a portion of its compute usage from EC2 to Lambda.

Savings Plans are a flexible pricing model that provide lower prices in exchange for a commitment to a consistent amount of compute usage (measured in dollars per hour) for a 1- or 3-year term. There are two main types of Savings Plans:

• Compute Savings Plans: Apply to any EC2 instance usage regardless of Region, instance family, OS, tenancy, and also apply to AWS Fargate and AWS Lambda usage.

• EC2 Instance Savings Plans: Apply only to a specific instance family in a specific Region.

In this scenario, because there will be a gradual migration from EC2-based compute to Lambda-based compute, a plan that only applies to EC2 (EC2 Instance Savings Plan) risks underutilization as more usage moves to Lambda. Compute Savings Plans, by contrast, can cover EC2 now and Lambda later, maintaining high utilization of the commitment and maximizing effective discount.

Option A recommends evaluating Savings Plans recommendations each year in AWS Cost Management and purchasing a 1-year Compute Savings Plan based on those recommendations. The Cost Management tools and Cost Explorer provide Savings Plans recommendations based on actual usage patterns. Buying 1-year Compute Savings Plans and re-evaluating annually allows the company to adjust its committed spend each year as portions of the application move from EC2 to Lambda. This approach maximizes the chance that the Savings Plans coverage matches the actual combined EC2 and Lambda usage over time and avoids being locked into an EC2-only commitment that becomes increasingly underutilized.

Option B is not optimal because it recommends a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan. That commitment applies only to specific EC2 instance families in a Region and does not apply to Lambda. As the company migrates portions of its workloads to Lambda, the EC2 Instance Savings Plan may become underutilized, reducing the effective discount and potentially increasing overall cost. Compute Optimizer also does not provide Savings Plans purchase recommendations; Savings Plans recommendations come from Cost Management and Cost Explorer.

Option C uses 1-year EC2 Instance Savings Plans and adjusts the commitment each year. While this gives some flexibility, EC2 Instance Savings Plans still do not apply to Lambda usage, so over time there is a risk of underutilizing the EC2 commitment as the Lambda portion grows. This does not maximize savings relative to Compute Savings Plans, which can cover both services.

Option D proposes a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan and suggests decreasing the hourly commitment during the term as workloads move to Lambda. However, Savings Plans commitments cannot be decreased during the term. The company would remain obligated to the original 3-year commitment even if EC2 usage drops, leading to wasted commitment.

Therefore, purchasing 1-year Compute Savings Plans each year based on Savings Plans recommendations from AWS Cost Management (option A) is the best strategy to maximize cost savings while the company transitions part of the workload from EC2 to Lambda.

The best option is to use an Auto Scaling group, a Network Load Balancer, Amazon Route 53, and Amazon DynamoDB to create a scalable, highly available, and low-latency online game application. An Auto Scaling group can automatically adjust the number of EC2 instances based on the demand and traffic in each Region. A Network Load Balancer can distribute the incoming traffic across the EC2 instances and handle millions of requests per second. Amazon Route 53 can use latency-based routing to direct the users to the Region that provides the best performance. Amazon DynamoDB global tables can replicate the game metadata across multiple Regions, ensuring consistency and availability of thedata. This approach minimizes the operational overhead and cost, as it leverages fully managed services and avoids custom logic or replication.

Option A is not optimal because using an EC2 Spot Fleet can introduce the risk of losing the EC2 instances if the Spot price exceeds the bid price, which can affect the availability and performance of the game. Using AWS Global Accelerator can improve the network performance, but it is not necessary if Amazon Route 53 can already route the users to the closest Region. Using Amazon RDS for MySQL can store the game metadata, but it requires setting up read replicas and managing the replication lag across Regions, which can increase the complexity and cost.

Option B is not optimal because using geoproximity routing can direct the users to the Region that is geographically closer, but it does not account for the network latency or performance. Using MySQL databases on EC2 instances can store the game metadata, but it requires managing the EC2 instances, the database software, the backups, the patches, and the replication across Regions, which can increase the operational overhead and cost.

Option D is not optimal because using EC2 Global View is not a valid service. Using a custom DNS server on an EC2 instance can redirect the user to the Region that provides the lowest latency, but it requires developing and maintaining the custom logic, as well as managing the EC2 instance, which can increase the operational overhead and cost. Using Amazon Aurora global database can store the game metadata, but it is more expensive and complex than using Amazon DynamoDB global tables.

Auto Scaling groups

Network Load Balancer

Amazon Route 53

Amazon DynamoDB global tables

This explanation is based on AWS documentation and best practices but is paraphrased, not a literal extract.

The company wants to move from a manual EC2 and EBS-based workflow to a containerized application on Amazon EKS and automate data movement. The solution must:

Support automated transfer of raw and processed data.

Offer multiprotocol support.

Be directly usable from the EKS cluster as a mounted volume.

Minimize operational effort by using managed services where possible.

AWS DataSync is a managed service designed to move data between on-premises storage and AWS storage services or between AWS storage services. It can perform scheduled or continuous transfers with minimal operational overhead. For storage accessible from Amazon EKS, a shared file system that supports mounting as a volume is appropriate.

Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP provides a fully managed file system with multiprotocol support, including NFS and SMB, and supports features such as snapshots and storage efficiencies. Because it supports multiple protocols, it satisfies the requirement for multiprotocol access and can be mounted by applications running in Amazon EKS using standard Kubernetes persistent volume mechanisms.

In the correct solution (option C), DataSync is used to copy raw data from the on-premises environment to FSx for NetApp ONTAP. The FSx for NetApp ONTAP file system is then mounted as a volume in the EKS cluster, allowing the containerized analytics processing logic to read and write data directly. After processing, DataSync is again used to copy processed data from FSx for NetApp ONTAP to Amazon S3 for long-term storage. This leverages DataSync’s native integration with both FSx for NetApp ONTAP and Amazon S3, and avoids the need to run or manage custom upload tooling.

Option A uses Amazon EFS, which supports NFS but does not provide multiprotocol support (for example, SMB), so it does not fully meet the multiprotocol requirement. It also introduces AWS Transfer for SFTP for the processed data upload, which adds an additional managed endpoint and SFTP-based flow, increasing complexity relative to using DataSync end-to-end.

Option B uses Amazon FSx for Lustre, which is optimized for high-performance compute workloads and integrates well with S3, but it is not a multiprotocol file system and is typically accessed via NFS. It does not meet the stated multiprotocol requirement.

Option D uses FSx for NetApp ONTAP (which supports multiprotocol) but relies on AWS Transfer for SFTP to move processed data to S3. While this can work, it adds another managed input endpoint and requires SFTP client configuration and management. Using DataSync directly from FSx for NetApp ONTAP to Amazon S3 (as in option C) is more straightforward, better suited for automated large-scale transfers, and involves less operational overhead.

Therefore, option C meets all the requirements with the least operational effort by using DataSync with FSx for NetApp ONTAP and S3.