Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 All Questions

View all questions & answers for the AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 exam

Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 892 discussion

Exam question from Amazon's AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03

Question #: 892
Topic #: 1

[All AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 Questions]

A company is migrating a data center from its on-premises location to AWS. The company has several legacy applications that are hosted on individual virtual servers. Changes to the application designs cannot be made.

Each individual virtual server currently runs as its own EC2 instance. A solutions architect needs to ensure that the applications are reliable and fault tolerant after migration to AWS. The applications will run on Amazon EC2 instances.

Which solution will meet these requirements?

A. Create an Auto Scaling group that has a minimum of one and a maximum of one. Create an Amazon Machine Image (AMI) of each application instance. Use the AMI to create EC2 instances in the Auto Scaling group Configure an Application Load Balancer in front of the Auto Scaling group.
B. Use AWS Backup to create an hourly backup of the EC2 instance that hosts each application. Store the backup in Amazon S3 in a separate Availability Zone. Configure a disaster recovery process to restore the EC2 instance for each application from its most recent backup.
C. Create an Amazon Machine Image (AMI) of each application instance. Launch two new EC2 instances from the AMI. Place each EC2 instance in a separate Availability Zone. Configure a Network Load Balancer that has the EC2 instances as targets.
D. Use AWS Mitigation Hub Refactor Spaces to migrate each application off the EC2 instance. Break down functionality from each application into individual components. Host each application on Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS) with an AWS Fargate launch type.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A 🗳️

by sandordini at April 30, 2024, 6:06 p.m.

Disclaimers:

- ExamTopics website is not related to, affiliated with, endorsed or authorized by Amazon.
- Trademarks, certification & product names are used for reference only and belong to Amazon.

Comments

Submit Cancel

Vasiliy

Highly Voted 1 year, 1 month ago

Selected Answer: A

Autoscaling with max=1 is what is needed to keep only one instance at a time - it will still fail, but it will spawn exactly one instance in case of failure (we are not allowed to change the design of the app) Having single instances in different AZ will not help - if one of the AZs is down, the app will still be affected

upvoted 13 times

...

sandordini

Highly Voted 1 year, 2 months ago

Selected Answer: C

NOT A: Autoscaling with Maximum of 1 EC2 :D NOT B: Hourly backup... RPO 1hr C: AMI, Multi-AZ -> Fault tolerant NOT D: ECS with Fargate, but it needs to run on EC2..

upvoted 11 times

Scheldon

1 year ago

You cannot change application and based on the story in the past there was only one server/copy of application running at the same time. So we cannot run more then one copy of any application at once. It is possible to set Min and Max to 1 which will automatically bring up server when it will crash. Taking into consideration that we cannot change application design and load-balancing between regions would probably need that (no information if applications are statefull or stateless) i would go for solution in answer A

upvoted 5 times

...

bora4motion

Most Recent 2 months ago

Selected Answer: C

needs to be C for fault tolerant.

upvoted 1 times

...

xerxusxu

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Selected Answer: A

这个题，真反人类

upvoted 1 times

...

Dantecito

4 months, 2 weeks ago

Selected Answer: C

C is the answerd. A. Changes in application designs are not the same as changes in infrastructure, also is not fault tolerant and an ALB just for one instance? whats the point of that

upvoted 1 times

...

dfgdsfgfdgreg

5 months, 2 weeks ago

Selected Answer: C

A has a single point of failure = not fault tolerant

upvoted 1 times

...

LeonSauveterre

6 months, 1 week ago

Selected Answer: C

A - Creating an AMI of each application instance ensures that the migrated applications are deployed consistently with their existing configurations, yes, but an Auto Scaling group with a minimum and maximum of one provides no redundancy. If the single instance fails, the application becomes unavailable. B - Backup-based disaster recovery does not provide real-time fault tolerance. It introduces downtime during recovery and does not meet the reliability requirement. C - Launching two EC2 instances in separate Availability Zones (AZs) provides high availability. If one AZ experiences an outage, the application remains accessible on the instance in the other AZ. D - "Changes to the application designs cannot be made."

upvoted 2 times

LeonSauveterre

6 months, 1 week ago

I copied this about option A. It's got some valid points, but just for your references. An Application Load Balancer is also not the best fit for all legacy applications, as it operates at the application layer (of 7-layer model) and requires HTTP/HTTPS traffic. So for protocols like FTP, SMTP or other TCP-based customized protocols, an ALB would be unsuitable.

upvoted 1 times

...

JA2018

7 months, 1 week ago

Selected Answer: C

I will choose Option C for the following reasons: #1 AMI creation: Creating an AMI of each application instance allows for easy replication. #2 Multiple Availability Zones: Launching instances in different Availability Zones provides redundancy in case of regional outages. #3 Network Load Balancer: A Network Load Balancer distributes traffic across the instances, providing high availability by automatically routing requests to a healthy instance if one fails.

upvoted 2 times

...

daveya

7 months, 2 weeks ago

What if application is statefull and there's no backup?

upvoted 2 times

...

zits88

8 months, 2 weeks ago

Selected Answer: C

I don't see how people can choose A here when it is talking about reliability and the answer only has a maximum of 1. There's nothing about cost effectiveness so there is no reason this one is better. Definitely C.

upvoted 1 times

Cpso

7 months, 1 week ago

we cant change applicaiton logic to be run 2 instance concurrently.

upvoted 1 times

...

muhammadahmer36

11 months, 3 weeks ago

Selected Answer: A

A. Create an Auto Scaling group that has a minimum of one and a maximum of one. Create an Amazon Machine Image (AMI) of each application instance. Use the AMI to create EC2 instances in the Auto Scaling group Configure an Application Load Balancer in front of the Auto Scaling group.

upvoted 3 times

...

EdricHoang

1 year ago

Selected Answer: C

Fault tolerance is not High Availability Answer A is HA design, not Fault tolerance

upvoted 2 times

Cpso

7 months, 1 week ago

exam said we can change application logic. 99.9% of single app usually work strange if you run it 2 process concurrently and random each request to them.

upvoted 1 times

...

Lin878

1 year ago

Selected Answer: A

A makes sense. C is possible but manual intervention.

upvoted 2 times

...

emakid

1 year ago

answer is A. Auto Scaling Group: Explanation: Minimum and Maximum of one instance: Ensures that the instance is always running. If the instance fails, Auto Scaling will automatically replace it with a new one, maintaining high availability. Amazon Machine Image (AMI): Captures the current state of the application instance, ensuring that new instances launched by Auto Scaling will have the same configuration. Application Load Balancer (ALB): Load Balancer: Distributes traffic to the instances in the Auto Scaling group, ensuring fault tolerance. Even though there is only one instance, the ALB can help manage incoming traffic and be ready for future scaling if needed. For C: While this provides high availability, it does not address fault tolerance as effectively as the Auto Scaling group approach. Without Auto Scaling, if an instance fails, manual intervention is required to launch new instances.

upvoted 4 times

...

24b2e9e

1 year ago

A makes sense

upvoted 2 times

...

Nm55569

1 year, 1 month ago

Selected Answer: A

It's either A or B but A is a better option. The application design cannot be changed so we don't know if it can run across 2 servers.

upvoted 3 times

...

Scheldon

1 year, 1 month ago

Selected Answer: A

Answer A It is possible to set Min and Max to 1 which will automatically bring up server when it will crash. Taking into consideration that we cannot change application design and load-balancing between regions would probably need that (no information if applications are statefull or stateless) i would go for solution in answer A https://docs.aws.amazon.com/autoscaling/ec2/userguide/asg-capacity-limits.html

upvoted 1 times

...