Amazon AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 Bundle

The option Measure IOPS queue depth and choose suitable SSD volume class addresses a separate condition: a very large EBS volume is underutilized while I/O latency stays high. Size alone does not guarantee I/O performance. The actual requirement is an instance's EBS bandwidth is lower than its attached volume aggregate. Choose an instance with sufficient EBS-optimized bandwidth instead: Instance-level EBS limits can bottleneck attached volume performance.

Increase gp3 throughput provisioning and validate instance limits would help if a gp3 volume saturates throughput on large streaming reads. EBS throughput depends on volume and instance network limits. That is not the symptom described here: an instance's EBS bandwidth is lower than its attached volume aggregate. The matching response is Choose an instance with sufficient EBS-optimized bandwidth, because instance-level EBS limits can bottleneck attached volume performance.

For the alternative failure a gp3 volume has adequate capacity but hits its provisioned IOPS ceiling, the control Increase gp3 provisioned IOPS within supported limits is relevant: gp3 performance settings can scale independently from volume size. Here the evidence instead is an instance's EBS bandwidth is lower than its attached volume aggregate. The selected technical mechanism is Choose an instance with sufficient EBS-optimized bandwidth: instance-level EBS limits can bottleneck attached volume performance.

Use properly sized EBS io2/gp3 storage for the database would help if an RDS workload's random block reads require stable IOPS. Block performance must meet latency and IOPS constraints. That is not the symptom described here: random reads of frequently reused database results dominate latency. The matching response is Cache hot results in Amazon ElastiCache with appropriate TTL, because in-memory caching avoids repeated backing-store queries.

For the alternative failure a container worker needs temporary fast scratch that can be regenerated, the control Use local ephemeral storage and plan for task replacement is relevant: disposable scratch may trade persistence for low latency. Here the evidence instead is random reads of frequently reused database results dominate latency. The selected technical mechanism is Cache hot results in Amazon ElastiCache with appropriate TTL: in-memory caching avoids repeated backing-store queries.

Use EFS instead of treating an object bucket as a mounted filesystem solves a different operational problem where a shared file needs file locking and POSIX semantics for Linux workers. NFS supports file-oriented semantics. It does not directly address random reads of frequently reused database results dominate latency. The case calls for Cache hot results in Amazon ElastiCache with appropriate TTL, since in-memory caching avoids repeated backing-store queries.

For the alternative failure random reads of frequently reused database results dominate latency, the control Cache hot results in Amazon ElastiCache with appropriate TTL is relevant: in-memory caching avoids repeated backing-store queries. Here the evidence instead is source objects need durability and direct HTTP download URLs. The selected technical mechanism is Use S3 with controlled access rather than Redis as primary storage: s3 offers durable object persistence.

The competing option Use EFS instead of treating an object bucket as a mounted filesystem would be useful when a shared file needs file locking and POSIX semantics for Linux workers. NFS supports file-oriented semantics. The present issue is source objects need durability and direct HTTP download URLs; it is more directly addressed by Use S3 with controlled access rather than Redis as primary storage. S3 offers durable object persistence.

The option Use properly sized EBS io2/gp3 storage for the database addresses a separate condition: an RDS workload's random block reads require stable IOPS. Block performance must meet latency and IOPS constraints. The actual requirement is source objects need durability and direct HTTP download URLs. Recommended corrective action: Use S3 with controlled access rather than Redis as primary storage. S3 offers durable object persistence.

Use S3 with controlled access rather than Redis as primary storage solves a different operational problem where source objects need durability and direct HTTP download URLs. S3 offers durable object persistence. It does not directly address a shared file needs file locking and POSIX semantics for Linux workers. The case calls for Use EFS instead of treating an object bucket as a mounted filesystem, since nFS supports file-oriented semantics.

The competing option Cache hot results in Amazon ElastiCache with appropriate TTL would be useful when random reads of frequently reused database results dominate latency. In-memory caching avoids repeated backing-store queries. The present issue is a shared file needs file locking and POSIX semantics for Linux workers; it is more directly addressed by Use EFS instead of treating an object bucket as a mounted filesystem. NFS supports file-oriented semantics.

The option Use properly sized EBS io2/gp3 storage for the database addresses a separate condition: an RDS workload's random block reads require stable IOPS. Block performance must meet latency and IOPS constraints. The actual requirement is a shared file needs file locking and POSIX semantics for Linux workers. Recommended corrective action: Use EFS instead of treating an object bucket as a mounted filesystem. NFS supports file-oriented semantics.

The competing option Use S3 with controlled access rather than Redis as primary storage would be useful when source objects need durability and direct HTTP download URLs. S3 offers durable object persistence. The present issue is a container worker needs temporary fast scratch that can be regenerated; it is more directly addressed by Use local ephemeral storage and plan for task replacement. Disposable scratch may trade persistence for low latency.

The option Cache hot results in Amazon ElastiCache with appropriate TTL addresses a separate condition: random reads of frequently reused database results dominate latency. In-memory caching avoids repeated backing-store queries. The actual requirement is a container worker needs temporary fast scratch that can be regenerated. Recommended corrective action: Use local ephemeral storage and plan for task replacement. Disposable scratch may trade persistence for low latency.

For the alternative failure a shared file needs file locking and POSIX semantics for Linux workers, the control Use EFS instead of treating an object bucket as a mounted filesystem is relevant: nFS supports file-oriented semantics. Here the evidence instead is a container worker needs temporary fast scratch that can be regenerated. The selected technical mechanism is Use local ephemeral storage and plan for task replacement: disposable scratch may trade persistence for low latency.

The option Cache hot results in Amazon ElastiCache with appropriate TTL addresses a separate condition: random reads of frequently reused database results dominate latency. In-memory caching avoids repeated backing-store queries. The actual requirement is an RDS workload's random block reads require stable IOPS. Recommended corrective action: Use properly sized EBS io2/gp3 storage for the database. Block performance must meet latency and IOPS constraints.

Use local ephemeral storage and plan for task replacement would help if a container worker needs temporary fast scratch that can be regenerated. Disposable scratch may trade persistence for low latency. That is not the symptom described here: an RDS workload's random block reads require stable IOPS. The matching response is Use properly sized EBS io2/gp3 storage for the database, because block performance must meet latency and IOPS constraints.

For the alternative failure source objects need durability and direct HTTP download URLs, the control Use S3 with controlled access rather than Redis as primary storage is relevant: s3 offers durable object persistence. Here the evidence instead is an RDS workload's random block reads require stable IOPS. The selected technical mechanism is Use properly sized EBS io2/gp3 storage for the database: block performance must meet latency and IOPS constraints.

Use AWS Storage Gateway Tape Gateway for compatible tape-backup software would help if a backup administrator needs a virtual tape library backed by cloud archival storage. Tape Gateway exposes virtual tapes backed by AWS storage. That is not the symptom described here: on-prem Linux servers need low-latency SMB/NFS-like file cache backed by AWS storage. The matching response is Deploy suitable AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway where protocol support matches, because file Gateway caches files while backing objects in S3.

Use AWS DataSync tasks targeting EFS solves a different operational problem where a data center must migrate millions of files efficiently into an EFS filesystem. DataSync transfers files with managed verification and scheduling. It does not directly address on-prem Linux servers need low-latency SMB/NFS-like file cache backed by AWS storage. The case calls for Deploy suitable AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway where protocol support matches, since file Gateway caches files while backing objects in S3.

The competing option Use Storage Gateway Volume Gateway where appropriate would be useful when an application depends on iSCSI volumes backed by cloud snapshots. Volume Gateway exposes iSCSI backed volumes. The present issue is on-prem Linux servers need low-latency SMB/NFS-like file cache backed by AWS storage; it is more directly addressed by Deploy suitable AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway where protocol support matches. File Gateway caches files while backing objects in S3.

For the alternative failure on-prem Linux servers need low-latency SMB/NFS-like file cache backed by AWS storage, the control Deploy suitable AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway where protocol support matches is relevant: file Gateway caches files while backing objects in S3. Here the evidence instead is a data center must migrate millions of files efficiently into an EFS filesystem. The selected technical mechanism is Use AWS DataSync tasks targeting EFS: dataSync transfers files with managed verification and scheduling.

Use FSx for Windows File Server in suitable region/network design solves a different operational problem where a global remote team needs a shared managed Windows file service. Managed SMB replaces custom Windows file servers. It does not directly address a data center must migrate millions of files efficiently into an EFS filesystem. The case calls for Use AWS DataSync tasks targeting EFS, since dataSync transfers files with managed verification and scheduling.

The option Use AWS Storage Gateway Tape Gateway for compatible tape-backup software addresses a separate condition: a backup administrator needs a virtual tape library backed by cloud archival storage. Tape Gateway exposes virtual tapes backed by AWS storage. The actual requirement is a data center must migrate millions of files efficiently into an EFS filesystem. Recommended corrective action: Use AWS DataSync tasks targeting EFS. DataSync transfers files with managed verification and scheduling.

Use AWS DataSync tasks targeting EFS solves a different operational problem where a data center must migrate millions of files efficiently into an EFS filesystem. DataSync transfers files with managed verification and scheduling. It does not directly address a backup administrator needs a virtual tape library backed by cloud archival storage. The case calls for Use AWS Storage Gateway Tape Gateway for compatible tape-backup software, since tape Gateway exposes virtual tapes backed by AWS storage.

The option Deploy suitable AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway where protocol support matches addresses a separate condition: on-prem Linux servers need low-latency SMB/NFS-like file cache backed by AWS storage. File Gateway caches files while backing objects in S3. The actual requirement is a backup administrator needs a virtual tape library backed by cloud archival storage. Recommended corrective action: Use AWS Storage Gateway Tape Gateway for compatible tape-backup software. Tape Gateway exposes virtual tapes backed by AWS storage.

Use Storage Gateway Volume Gateway where appropriate would help if an application depends on iSCSI volumes backed by cloud snapshots. Volume Gateway exposes iSCSI backed volumes. That is not the symptom described here: a backup administrator needs a virtual tape library backed by cloud archival storage. The matching response is Use AWS Storage Gateway Tape Gateway for compatible tape-backup software, because tape Gateway exposes virtual tapes backed by AWS storage.

The competing option Deploy suitable AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway where protocol support matches would be useful when on-prem Linux servers need low-latency SMB/NFS-like file cache backed by AWS storage. File Gateway caches files while backing objects in S3. The present issue is an application depends on iSCSI volumes backed by cloud snapshots; it is more directly addressed by Use Storage Gateway Volume Gateway where appropriate. Volume Gateway exposes iSCSI backed volumes.

The option Use AWS Storage Gateway Tape Gateway for compatible tape-backup software addresses a separate condition: a backup administrator needs a virtual tape library backed by cloud archival storage. Tape Gateway exposes virtual tapes backed by AWS storage. The actual requirement is an application depends on iSCSI volumes backed by cloud snapshots. Recommended corrective action: Use Storage Gateway Volume Gateway where appropriate. Volume Gateway exposes iSCSI backed volumes.

Use AWS DataSync tasks targeting EFS would help if a data center must migrate millions of files efficiently into an EFS filesystem. DataSync transfers files with managed verification and scheduling. That is not the symptom described here: an application depends on iSCSI volumes backed by cloud snapshots. The matching response is Use Storage Gateway Volume Gateway where appropriate, because volume Gateway exposes iSCSI backed volumes.

The option Deploy suitable AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway where protocol support matches addresses a separate condition: on-prem Linux servers need low-latency SMB/NFS-like file cache backed by AWS storage. File Gateway caches files while backing objects in S3. The actual requirement is a global remote team needs a shared managed Windows file service. Recommended corrective action: Use FSx for Windows File Server in suitable region/network design. Managed SMB replaces custom Windows file servers.

For the alternative failure a backup administrator needs a virtual tape library backed by cloud archival storage, the control Use AWS Storage Gateway Tape Gateway for compatible tape-backup software is relevant: tape Gateway exposes virtual tapes backed by AWS storage. Here the evidence instead is a global remote team needs a shared managed Windows file service. The selected technical mechanism is Use FSx for Windows File Server in suitable region/network design: managed SMB replaces custom Windows file servers.

Use AWS DataSync tasks targeting EFS solves a different operational problem where a data center must migrate millions of files efficiently into an EFS filesystem. DataSync transfers files with managed verification and scheduling. It does not directly address a global remote team needs a shared managed Windows file service. The case calls for Use FSx for Windows File Server in suitable region/network design, since managed SMB replaces custom Windows file servers.