Amazon AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 Bundle

The option Send strongly consistent reads to DynamoDB when required addresses a separate condition: cache nodes are expected to provide strongly consistent reads by default. DynamoDB accelerator caches do not replace all consistency semantics. The actual requirement is the database struggles on repeated expensive aggregations of infrequently changing results. Recommended corrective action: Materialize or cache approved aggregate results with refresh rules. Precomputation trades freshness for lower query cost.

For the alternative failure a global app needs millisecond primary-key reads in several regions, the control Use DynamoDB global tables with regional access patterns is relevant: replicated region-local data improves global latency. Here the evidence instead is the database struggles on repeated expensive aggregations of infrequently changing results. The selected technical mechanism is Materialize or cache approved aggregate results with refresh rules: precomputation trades freshness for lower query cost.

Use Amazon Redshift or suitable analytical lake services solves a different operational problem where relational analytics need billions of rows scanned quickly. Analytics warehouses optimize bulk columnar scans. It does not directly address the database struggles on repeated expensive aggregations of infrequently changing results. The case calls for Materialize or cache approved aggregate results with refresh rules, since precomputation trades freshness for lower query cost.

Use a Network Load Balancer with suitable target groups would help if a protocol requires pass-through TCP routing rather than HTTP inspection. NLB provides Layer-4 load balancing. That is not the symptom described here: images are fetched repeatedly from one distant regional S3 origin. The matching response is Place CloudFront in front of the private origin with appropriate caching, because edge caching reduces repeated long-haul requests.

For the alternative failure a website requires URL-path rules across multiple ECS target groups, the control Use an Application Load Balancer is relevant: aLB handles HTTP-aware routing. Here the evidence instead is images are fetched repeatedly from one distant regional S3 origin. The selected technical mechanism is Place CloudFront in front of the private origin with appropriate caching: edge caching reduces repeated long-haul requests.

The competing option Use AWS Global Accelerator for eligible TCP endpoints would be useful when a global multiplayer game needs static IPs and latency-aware TCP routing. Accelerator routes global TCP traffic through the AWS backbone. The present issue is images are fetched repeatedly from one distant regional S3 origin; it is more directly addressed by Place CloudFront in front of the private origin with appropriate caching. Edge caching reduces repeated long-haul requests.

For the alternative failure a website requires URL-path rules across multiple ECS target groups, the control Use an Application Load Balancer is relevant: aLB handles HTTP-aware routing. Here the evidence instead is a global multiplayer game needs static IPs and latency-aware TCP routing. The selected technical mechanism is Use AWS Global Accelerator for eligible TCP endpoints: accelerator routes global TCP traffic through the AWS backbone.

Use a Network Load Balancer with suitable target groups solves a different operational problem where a protocol requires pass-through TCP routing rather than HTTP inspection. NLB provides Layer-4 load balancing. It does not directly address a global multiplayer game needs static IPs and latency-aware TCP routing. The case calls for Use AWS Global Accelerator for eligible TCP endpoints, since accelerator routes global TCP traffic through the AWS backbone.

The option Use Route 53 latency-based routing and health checks addresses a separate condition: dNS requests should resolve to the nearest region by measured latency. DNS latency policies select regional endpoints. The actual requirement is a global multiplayer game needs static IPs and latency-aware TCP routing. Recommended corrective action: Use AWS Global Accelerator for eligible TCP endpoints. Accelerator routes global TCP traffic through the AWS backbone.

The competing option Place CloudFront in front of the private origin with appropriate caching would be useful when images are fetched repeatedly from one distant regional S3 origin. Edge caching reduces repeated long-haul requests. The present issue is dNS requests should resolve to the nearest region by measured latency; it is more directly addressed by Use Route 53 latency-based routing and health checks. DNS latency policies select regional endpoints.

The option Use an Application Load Balancer addresses a separate condition: a website requires URL-path rules across multiple ECS target groups. ALB handles HTTP-aware routing. The actual requirement is dNS requests should resolve to the nearest region by measured latency. Recommended corrective action: Use Route 53 latency-based routing and health checks. DNS latency policies select regional endpoints.

Use a Network Load Balancer with suitable target groups would help if a protocol requires pass-through TCP routing rather than HTTP inspection. NLB provides Layer-4 load balancing. That is not the symptom described here: dNS requests should resolve to the nearest region by measured latency. The matching response is Use Route 53 latency-based routing and health checks, because dNS latency policies select regional endpoints.

The competing option Use Route 53 latency-based routing and health checks would be useful when dNS requests should resolve to the nearest region by measured latency. DNS latency policies select regional endpoints. The present issue is a website requires URL-path rules across multiple ECS target groups; it is more directly addressed by Use an Application Load Balancer. ALB handles HTTP-aware routing.

The option Use a Network Load Balancer with suitable target groups addresses a separate condition: a protocol requires pass-through TCP routing rather than HTTP inspection. NLB provides Layer-4 load balancing. The actual requirement is a website requires URL-path rules across multiple ECS target groups. Recommended corrective action: Use an Application Load Balancer. ALB handles HTTP-aware routing.

Use AWS Global Accelerator for eligible TCP endpoints would help if a global multiplayer game needs static IPs and latency-aware TCP routing. Accelerator routes global TCP traffic through the AWS backbone. That is not the symptom described here: a website requires URL-path rules across multiple ECS target groups. The matching response is Use an Application Load Balancer, because aLB handles HTTP-aware routing.

The option Use AWS Global Accelerator for eligible TCP endpoints addresses a separate condition: a global multiplayer game needs static IPs and latency-aware TCP routing. Accelerator routes global TCP traffic through the AWS backbone. The actual requirement is a protocol requires pass-through TCP routing rather than HTTP inspection. Recommended corrective action: Use a Network Load Balancer with suitable target groups. NLB provides Layer-4 load balancing.

Use an Application Load Balancer would help if a website requires URL-path rules across multiple ECS target groups. ALB handles HTTP-aware routing. That is not the symptom described here: a protocol requires pass-through TCP routing rather than HTTP inspection. The matching response is Use a Network Load Balancer with suitable target groups, because nLB provides Layer-4 load balancing.

Use Route 53 latency-based routing and health checks solves a different operational problem where dNS requests should resolve to the nearest region by measured latency. DNS latency policies select regional endpoints. It does not directly address a protocol requires pass-through TCP routing rather than HTTP inspection. The case calls for Use a Network Load Balancer with suitable target groups, since nLB provides Layer-4 load balancing.

Use PrivateLink endpoint service rather than full CIDR routing would help if a producer needs to expose one private API to a partner with overlapping CIDR. PrivateLink offers service-level connectivity without overlapping route domains. That is not the symptom described here: a dozen VPCs require centralized transitive routing. The matching response is Use AWS Transit Gateway with route-table association/propagation, because transit Gateway supports hub-and-spoke routing.

For the alternative failure a service consumer requires an interface endpoint in each application AZ, the control Create interface endpoint subnets across the relevant AZs and validate security groups is relevant: endpoint placement affects network latency and AZ availability. Here the evidence instead is a dozen VPCs require centralized transitive routing. The selected technical mechanism is Use AWS Transit Gateway with route-table association/propagation: transit Gateway supports hub-and-spoke routing.

Add a DynamoDB gateway VPC endpoint in relevant route tables solves a different operational problem where a private EC2 fleet must call DynamoDB without NAT. Gateway endpoint routes avoid public egress for DynamoDB. It does not directly address a dozen VPCs require centralized transitive routing. The case calls for Use AWS Transit Gateway with route-table association/propagation, since transit Gateway supports hub-and-spoke routing.

For the alternative failure a dozen VPCs require centralized transitive routing, the control Use AWS Transit Gateway with route-table association/propagation is relevant: transit Gateway supports hub-and-spoke routing. Here the evidence instead is only two nonoverlapping VPCs need private point-to-point connectivity. The selected technical mechanism is Use VPC peering with reciprocal route entries: peering connects two VPC networks without a transit gateway.

Add a DynamoDB gateway VPC endpoint in relevant route tables solves a different operational problem where a private EC2 fleet must call DynamoDB without NAT. Gateway endpoint routes avoid public egress for DynamoDB. It does not directly address only two nonoverlapping VPCs need private point-to-point connectivity. The case calls for Use VPC peering with reciprocal route entries, since peering connects two VPC networks without a transit gateway.

The option Create interface endpoint subnets across the relevant AZs and validate security groups addresses a separate condition: a service consumer requires an interface endpoint in each application AZ. Endpoint placement affects network latency and AZ availability. The actual requirement is only two nonoverlapping VPCs need private point-to-point connectivity. Recommended corrective action: Use VPC peering with reciprocal route entries. Peering connects two VPC networks without a transit gateway.

Create interface endpoint subnets across the relevant AZs and validate security groups solves a different operational problem where a service consumer requires an interface endpoint in each application AZ. Endpoint placement affects network latency and AZ availability. It does not directly address a producer needs to expose one private API to a partner with overlapping CIDR. The case calls for Use PrivateLink endpoint service rather than full CIDR routing, since privateLink offers service-level connectivity without overlapping route domains.

The option Use AWS Transit Gateway with route-table association/propagation addresses a separate condition: a dozen VPCs require centralized transitive routing. Transit Gateway supports hub-and-spoke routing. The actual requirement is a producer needs to expose one private API to a partner with overlapping CIDR. Recommended corrective action: Use PrivateLink endpoint service rather than full CIDR routing. PrivateLink offers service-level connectivity without overlapping route domains.

Use VPC peering with reciprocal route entries would help if only two nonoverlapping VPCs need private point-to-point connectivity. Peering connects two VPC networks without a transit gateway. That is not the symptom described here: a producer needs to expose one private API to a partner with overlapping CIDR. The matching response is Use PrivateLink endpoint service rather than full CIDR routing, because privateLink offers service-level connectivity without overlapping route domains.

The option Use VPC peering with reciprocal route entries addresses a separate condition: only two nonoverlapping VPCs need private point-to-point connectivity. Peering connects two VPC networks without a transit gateway. The actual requirement is a private EC2 fleet must call DynamoDB without NAT. Recommended corrective action: Add a DynamoDB gateway VPC endpoint in relevant route tables. Gateway endpoint routes avoid public egress for DynamoDB.

Create interface endpoint subnets across the relevant AZs and validate security groups would help if a service consumer requires an interface endpoint in each application AZ. Endpoint placement affects network latency and AZ availability. That is not the symptom described here: a private EC2 fleet must call DynamoDB without NAT. The matching response is Add a DynamoDB gateway VPC endpoint in relevant route tables, because gateway endpoint routes avoid public egress for DynamoDB.

For the alternative failure a producer needs to expose one private API to a partner with overlapping CIDR, the control Use PrivateLink endpoint service rather than full CIDR routing is relevant: privateLink offers service-level connectivity without overlapping route domains. Here the evidence instead is a private EC2 fleet must call DynamoDB without NAT. The selected technical mechanism is Add a DynamoDB gateway VPC endpoint in relevant route tables: gateway endpoint routes avoid public egress for DynamoDB.

Use AWS Transit Gateway with route-table association/propagation would help if a dozen VPCs require centralized transitive routing. Transit Gateway supports hub-and-spoke routing. That is not the symptom described here: a service consumer requires an interface endpoint in each application AZ. The matching response is Create interface endpoint subnets across the relevant AZs and validate security groups, because endpoint placement affects network latency and AZ availability.

For the alternative failure only two nonoverlapping VPCs need private point-to-point connectivity, the control Use VPC peering with reciprocal route entries is relevant: peering connects two VPC networks without a transit gateway. Here the evidence instead is a service consumer requires an interface endpoint in each application AZ. The selected technical mechanism is Create interface endpoint subnets across the relevant AZs and validate security groups: endpoint placement affects network latency and AZ availability.

Add a DynamoDB gateway VPC endpoint in relevant route tables solves a different operational problem where a private EC2 fleet must call DynamoDB without NAT. Gateway endpoint routes avoid public egress for DynamoDB. It does not directly address a service consumer requires an interface endpoint in each application AZ. The case calls for Create interface endpoint subnets across the relevant AZs and validate security groups, since endpoint placement affects network latency and AZ availability.