Amazon AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 Bundle

The option Maintain a warm standby regional workload with replicating data addresses a separate condition: the application must resume within fifteen minutes using reduced standby capacity. Warm standby predeploys an operable reduced-scale stack. The actual requirement is the team documents RPO/RTO requirements but cannot demonstrate actual results. Recommended corrective action: Measure actual failover and data loss during controlled DR drills. Verified metrics reveal whether recovery objectives are met.

Choose backup-and-restore DR and test reconstruction steps would help if the business accepts twelve hours of downtime for rarely used reports. Infrequent workloads can trade recovery time for lower steady cost. That is not the symptom described here: the team documents RPO/RTO requirements but cannot demonstrate actual results. The matching response is Measure actual failover and data loss during controlled DR drills, because verified metrics reveal whether recovery objectives are met.

For the alternative failure recovery must occur within two hours while keeping only core data replicated, the control Use pilot light with automated scale-out for the recovery region is relevant: pilot-light architecture maintains minimal regional primitives. Here the evidence instead is the team documents RPO/RTO requirements but cannot demonstrate actual results. The selected technical mechanism is Measure actual failover and data loss during controlled DR drills: verified metrics reveal whether recovery objectives are met.

Evaluate TTL and intermediate resolver caching behavior would help if clients ignore DNS changes for longer than expected after outage. DNS updates propagate through cached resolvers. That is not the symptom described here: a primary record points to a failed web endpoint but continues to answer. The matching response is Attach a functioning health check to the Route 53 failover configuration, because health checks govern eligible failover DNS answers.

Use Global Accelerator anycast addresses and healthy endpoint groups solves a different operational problem where a global app requires fixed IPs instead of DNS-only failover endpoints. Anycast static entry supports regional steering. It does not directly address a primary record points to a failed web endpoint but continues to answer. The case calls for Attach a functioning health check to the Route 53 failover configuration, since health checks govern eligible failover DNS answers.

The competing option Use Route 53 latency-based routing with health-aware targets would be useful when a service must route to the endpoint with best measured latency. Latency measurements inform region selection. The present issue is a primary record points to a failed web endpoint but continues to answer; it is more directly addressed by Attach a functioning health check to the Route 53 failover configuration. Health checks govern eligible failover DNS answers.

For the alternative failure a primary record points to a failed web endpoint but continues to answer, the control Attach a functioning health check to the Route 53 failover configuration is relevant: health checks govern eligible failover DNS answers. Here the evidence instead is two endpoints share one hostname but a percentage of traffic should move gradually. The selected technical mechanism is Use weighted DNS records and monitor outcomes: weighted routing supports progressive shifts.

Use Route 53 latency-based routing with health-aware targets solves a different operational problem where a service must route to the endpoint with best measured latency. Latency measurements inform region selection. It does not directly address two endpoints share one hostname but a percentage of traffic should move gradually. The case calls for Use weighted DNS records and monitor outcomes, since weighted routing supports progressive shifts.

The competing option Evaluate TTL and intermediate resolver caching behavior would be useful when clients ignore DNS changes for longer than expected after outage. DNS updates propagate through cached resolvers. The present issue is two endpoints share one hostname but a percentage of traffic should move gradually; it is more directly addressed by Use weighted DNS records and monitor outcomes. Weighted routing supports progressive shifts.

Use Global Accelerator anycast addresses and healthy endpoint groups solves a different operational problem where a global app requires fixed IPs instead of DNS-only failover endpoints. Anycast static entry supports regional steering. It does not directly address clients ignore DNS changes for longer than expected after outage. The case calls for Evaluate TTL and intermediate resolver caching behavior, since dNS updates propagate through cached resolvers.

The competing option Use Route 53 latency-based routing with health-aware targets would be useful when a service must route to the endpoint with best measured latency. Latency measurements inform region selection. The present issue is clients ignore DNS changes for longer than expected after outage; it is more directly addressed by Evaluate TTL and intermediate resolver caching behavior. DNS updates propagate through cached resolvers.

The option Use weighted DNS records and monitor outcomes addresses a separate condition: two endpoints share one hostname but a percentage of traffic should move gradually. Weighted routing supports progressive shifts. The actual requirement is clients ignore DNS changes for longer than expected after outage. Recommended corrective action: Evaluate TTL and intermediate resolver caching behavior. DNS updates propagate through cached resolvers.

The competing option Use weighted DNS records and monitor outcomes would be useful when two endpoints share one hostname but a percentage of traffic should move gradually. Weighted routing supports progressive shifts. The present issue is a global app requires fixed IPs instead of DNS-only failover endpoints; it is more directly addressed by Use Global Accelerator anycast addresses and healthy endpoint groups. Anycast static entry supports regional steering.

The option Attach a functioning health check to the Route 53 failover configuration addresses a separate condition: a primary record points to a failed web endpoint but continues to answer. Health checks govern eligible failover DNS answers. The actual requirement is a global app requires fixed IPs instead of DNS-only failover endpoints. Recommended corrective action: Use Global Accelerator anycast addresses and healthy endpoint groups. Anycast static entry supports regional steering.

For the alternative failure a service must route to the endpoint with best measured latency, the control Use Route 53 latency-based routing with health-aware targets is relevant: latency measurements inform region selection. Here the evidence instead is a global app requires fixed IPs instead of DNS-only failover endpoints. The selected technical mechanism is Use Global Accelerator anycast addresses and healthy endpoint groups: anycast static entry supports regional steering.

The option Use Global Accelerator anycast addresses and healthy endpoint groups addresses a separate condition: a global app requires fixed IPs instead of DNS-only failover endpoints. Anycast static entry supports regional steering. The actual requirement is a service must route to the endpoint with best measured latency. Recommended corrective action: Use Route 53 latency-based routing with health-aware targets. Latency measurements inform region selection.

For the alternative failure a primary record points to a failed web endpoint but continues to answer, the control Attach a functioning health check to the Route 53 failover configuration is relevant: health checks govern eligible failover DNS answers. Here the evidence instead is a service must route to the endpoint with best measured latency. The selected technical mechanism is Use Route 53 latency-based routing with health-aware targets: latency measurements inform region selection.

Use weighted DNS records and monitor outcomes solves a different operational problem where two endpoints share one hostname but a percentage of traffic should move gradually. Weighted routing supports progressive shifts. It does not directly address a service must route to the endpoint with best measured latency. The case calls for Use Route 53 latency-based routing with health-aware targets, since latency measurements inform region selection.

Configure EFS replication or AWS Backup recovery in another Region where supported would help if a regional EFS file system needs geographically separate recovery. Cross-region copies address a regional failure. That is not the symptom described here: an application stores shared assets only on one EC2 root volume. The matching response is Move shared files to Amazon EFS with appropriate mount targets, because regional EFS can provide shared NFS across instances.

Configure EFS mount targets in required Availability Zones solves a different operational problem where eFS clients in a second AZ have no local mount target and fail during AZ loss. AZ-local mount targets provide regional client access resilience. It does not directly address an application stores shared assets only on one EC2 root volume. The case calls for Move shared files to Amazon EFS with appropriate mount targets, since regional EFS can provide shared NFS across instances.

The competing option Add backup/version/recovery procedures for shared filesystem content would be useful when a data pipeline writes temporary state to EFS and assumes it is immune to accidental deletion. Regional HA does not undo logical file deletion. The present issue is an application stores shared assets only on one EC2 root volume; it is more directly addressed by Move shared files to Amazon EFS with appropriate mount targets. Regional EFS can provide shared NFS across instances.

For the alternative failure an application stores shared assets only on one EC2 root volume, the control Move shared files to Amazon EFS with appropriate mount targets is relevant: regional EFS can provide shared NFS across instances. Here the evidence instead is eFS clients in a second AZ have no local mount target and fail during AZ loss. The selected technical mechanism is Configure EFS mount targets in required Availability Zones: aZ-local mount targets provide regional client access resilience.

The competing option Configure EFS replication or AWS Backup recovery in another Region where supported would be useful when a regional EFS file system needs geographically separate recovery. Cross-region copies address a regional failure. The present issue is eFS clients in a second AZ have no local mount target and fail during AZ loss; it is more directly addressed by Configure EFS mount targets in required Availability Zones. AZ-local mount targets provide regional client access resilience.

The option Allow TCP 2049 between approved client and mount-target security groups addresses a separate condition: linux clients lose file access because EFS mount-target security groups reject NFS. NFS network access must be explicitly authorized. The actual requirement is eFS clients in a second AZ have no local mount target and fail during AZ loss. Recommended corrective action: Configure EFS mount targets in required Availability Zones. AZ-local mount targets provide regional client access resilience.

The competing option Configure EFS mount targets in required Availability Zones would be useful when eFS clients in a second AZ have no local mount target and fail during AZ loss. AZ-local mount targets provide regional client access resilience. The present issue is linux clients lose file access because EFS mount-target security groups reject NFS; it is more directly addressed by Allow TCP 2049 between approved client and mount-target security groups. NFS network access must be explicitly authorized.

The option Configure EFS replication or AWS Backup recovery in another Region where supported addresses a separate condition: a regional EFS file system needs geographically separate recovery. Cross-region copies address a regional failure. The actual requirement is linux clients lose file access because EFS mount-target security groups reject NFS. Recommended corrective action: Allow TCP 2049 between approved client and mount-target security groups. NFS network access must be explicitly authorized.

Add backup/version/recovery procedures for shared filesystem content would help if a data pipeline writes temporary state to EFS and assumes it is immune to accidental deletion. Regional HA does not undo logical file deletion. That is not the symptom described here: linux clients lose file access because EFS mount-target security groups reject NFS. The matching response is Allow TCP 2049 between approved client and mount-target security groups, because nFS network access must be explicitly authorized.

The competing option Allow TCP 2049 between approved client and mount-target security groups would be useful when linux clients lose file access because EFS mount-target security groups reject NFS. NFS network access must be explicitly authorized. The present issue is a regional EFS file system needs geographically separate recovery; it is more directly addressed by Configure EFS replication or AWS Backup recovery in another Region where supported. Cross-region copies address a regional failure.

Configure EFS mount targets in required Availability Zones would help if eFS clients in a second AZ have no local mount target and fail during AZ loss. AZ-local mount targets provide regional client access resilience. That is not the symptom described here: a regional EFS file system needs geographically separate recovery. The matching response is Configure EFS replication or AWS Backup recovery in another Region where supported, because cross-region copies address a regional failure.

For the alternative failure an application stores shared assets only on one EC2 root volume, the control Move shared files to Amazon EFS with appropriate mount targets is relevant: regional EFS can provide shared NFS across instances. Here the evidence instead is a regional EFS file system needs geographically separate recovery. The selected technical mechanism is Configure EFS replication or AWS Backup recovery in another Region where supported: cross-region copies address a regional failure.

The option Allow TCP 2049 between approved client and mount-target security groups addresses a separate condition: linux clients lose file access because EFS mount-target security groups reject NFS. NFS network access must be explicitly authorized. The actual requirement is a data pipeline writes temporary state to EFS and assumes it is immune to accidental deletion. Recommended corrective action: Add backup/version/recovery procedures for shared filesystem content. Regional HA does not undo logical file deletion.

Move shared files to Amazon EFS with appropriate mount targets would help if an application stores shared assets only on one EC2 root volume. Regional EFS can provide shared NFS across instances. That is not the symptom described here: a data pipeline writes temporary state to EFS and assumes it is immune to accidental deletion. The matching response is Add backup/version/recovery procedures for shared filesystem content, because regional HA does not undo logical file deletion.

Configure EFS mount targets in required Availability Zones solves a different operational problem where eFS clients in a second AZ have no local mount target and fail during AZ loss. AZ-local mount targets provide regional client access resilience. It does not directly address a data pipeline writes temporary state to EFS and assumes it is immune to accidental deletion. The case calls for Add backup/version/recovery procedures for shared filesystem content, since regional HA does not undo logical file deletion.