ExamTopics Logo
Mail Us[email protected]
Menu
Amazon Discussions
exam questions

Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional All Questions

View all questions & answers for the AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional exam
Go to Exam

Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional topic 1 question 725 discussion

Exam question from Amazon's AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional
Question #: 725
Topic #: 1
[All AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional Questions]

A development team has created a new flight tracker application that provides near-real-time data to users. The application has a front end that consists of an
Application Load Balancer (ALB) in front of two large Amazon EC2 instances in a single Availability Zone. Data is stored in a single Amazon RDS MySQL DB instance. An Amazon Route 53 DNS record points to the ALB.
Management wants the development team to improve the solution to achieve maximum reliability with the least amount of operational overhead.
Which set of actions should the team take?

  • A. Create RDS MySQL read replicas. Deploy the application to multiple AWS Regions. Use a Route 53 latency-based routing policy to route to the application.
  • B. Configure the DB instance as Multi-AZ. Deploy the application to two additional EC2 instances in different Availability Zones behind an ALB.
  • C. Replace the DB instance with Amazon DynamoDB global tables. Deploy the application in multiple AWS Regions. Use a Route 53 latency-based routing policy to route to the application.
  • D. Replace the DB instance with Amazon Aurora with Aurora Replicas. Deploy the application to multiple smaller EC2 instances across multiple Availability Zones in an Auto Scaling group behind an ALB.
Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D 🗳️
by Jaypdv at April 30, 2021, 12:12 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

Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.
Switch to a voting comment New
Submit Cancel
Waiweng
Highly Voted 3 years, 7 months ago
it's D Aurora which provides the least amount of operational overhead
upvoted 21 times
Coffeinerd
3 years, 6 months ago
For sure D! Besides Aurora we have autoscaling -> no operational overhead on load events.
upvoted 5 times
...
czarno
3 years ago
I don't think so. There might be a reason why there are 2 HUGE ec2 instances running. Maybe the application needs this kind of a performance as it can't run in parallel. In this case you can't just scale out... while scaling in. Aurora would be nice, but not this time. Answer B is correct
upvoted 1 times
mnsait
4 months, 1 week ago
If instance size was a constraint, the question will need to indicate it. Else, we go with the use case presented. Plus B does not even have ASG. How will you address reliability without ASG in place? Answer is D
upvoted 1 times
...
...
...
beebatov
Highly Voted 3 years, 7 months ago
Answer: C B doesn't offer MAXIMUM resiliency, following the well architected framework's resiliency pillar, DR scenario must be considered. In this scenario we have a near real-time application, we would need DynamoDB + multi region for maximum resiliency for both App and DB. Moreover, we are working the development team that can switch from RDS to NoSQL.
upvoted 6 times
beebatov
3 years, 7 months ago
changing to D https://youtu.be/ZCt3ctVfGIk?t=111
upvoted 10 times
...
DashL
3 years, 6 months ago
The question says "achieve maximum reliability with the least amount of operational overhead". RDS/Aurora has much higher operational overhead than DynamoDB.
upvoted 2 times
kadev
2 years, 7 months ago
And you want to double large EC2 to another region + add more money for changing coding lol
upvoted 1 times
...
...
...
[Removed]
Most Recent 2 years, 1 month ago
Selected Answer: D
Nothing to do with cost, operation overhead will be reduced with option D, autoscaling and more smaller instances mean more resiliency. If the question was cost related or least changes required upfront i would probably go B.
upvoted 1 times
...
evargasbrz
2 years, 3 months ago
Selected Answer: D
I'll go with D
upvoted 1 times
...
cale
2 years, 7 months ago
Selected Answer: D
It's D
upvoted 1 times
...
kadev
2 years, 7 months ago
"operational overhead" => saving cost B/D 1. Currently, App in "two large Amazon EC2" in 1 AZ, we can saving cost by smaller EC2 + Autoscaling in multi A-Z , not adds more large EC2 2. RDS multi AZ, that mean 2 instance equaly, double cost. With replicas, you can chose a maller RDS type for savign cost. ===> Finally, D
upvoted 1 times
...
KiraguJohn
2 years, 8 months ago
Which one is more costly? 1. Changing existing RDS to multi AZ or 2. Converting the existing RDS to Amazon Aurora
upvoted 1 times
kadev
2 years, 7 months ago
RDS to multi AZ => two instance equally , double cost Amazon Aurora or RDS ( with replicas , read Q carefully ) => you can pick small RDS type for replica instance
upvoted 1 times
...
...
TechX
2 years, 10 months ago
Selected Answer: B
B for me Seem that the question has change, it's say that it needs minimize operational expense, which made me choose B over D. Using Aurora will cost you more
upvoted 1 times
Cal88
2 years, 5 months ago
Operational overhead not expense. Read the question carefully Cost is not a concern here but availability is. Adding two large nodes will not guarantee HA , but auto scaling will So D is better I am sorry
upvoted 2 times
...
...
kangtamo
2 years, 10 months ago
Selected Answer: D
Agree with D: Aurora.
upvoted 1 times
...
azure_kai
3 years, 1 month ago
Selected Answer: D
Ans: D
upvoted 2 times
...
razerlg
3 years, 1 month ago
Selected Answer: B
In my opinion D doesnt guarantee multi-AZ unless the replica is placed in a different AZ, and that is not specified. I would choose B
upvoted 2 times
...
johnnsmith
3 years, 2 months ago
B is correct. A and C are wrong because Route 53 health check is missing. D is wrong because it doesn't say "replica in a different AZ" or Multi-AZ. Only B can still function when an AZ fails,
upvoted 2 times
...
pititcu667
3 years, 2 months ago
Selected Answer: B
B because they specifically mention least amount of effort while minimizing costs.
upvoted 1 times
...
futen0326
3 years, 2 months ago
Selected Answer: B
Did they change the question ..? I'm reading "The development team is tasked with enhancing the solution's dependability while minimizing operating expenses." Switching to Aurora will incur a big cost.. you can simply setup Multi-AZ, and switch the instances to be in different AZs. It is not the most resilient architecture but it is improved and the most cost-effective one here.
upvoted 2 times
...
kyo
3 years, 2 months ago
D is better than B.
upvoted 1 times
...
kubala
3 years, 3 months ago
Selected Answer: D
D my opinion
upvoted 3 times
...
cannottellname
3 years, 3 months ago
Selected Answer: D
DDDDDDDDDDD
upvoted 4 times
...
Load full discussion...
Community vote distribution
A (35%)
C (25%)
B (20%)
Other
Most Voted
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.

Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one. So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.

SaveCancel
exam
Someone Bought Contributor Access for:
SY0-701
London, 1 minute ago