Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 141 discussion

Answer is A. Amazon CloudFront is a web service that speeds up distribution of your static and dynamic web content https://www.examtopics.com/discussions/amazon/view/81081-exam-aws-certified-solutions-architect-associate-saa-c02/

Answer should be B, CloudFront reduces latency if its only static content, which is not the case here. For Dynamic content, CF cant cache the content so it sends the traffic through the AWS Network which does reduces latency, but it still has to travel through another region. For the case with 2 region and Route 53 latency routing, Route 53 detects the nearest resouce (with lowest latency) and routes the traffic there. Because the traffic does not have to travel to resources far away, it should have the least latency in this case here.

Dynamic content can also be served via CloudFront by configuring the WordPress website as an origin. Since dynamic content includes personalized content, you need to configure CloudFront to forward certain HTTP cookies and HTTP headers as part of a request to your custom origin server. CloudFront uses the forwarded cookie values as part of the key that identifies a unique object in its cache. To ensure that you maximize the caching efficiency, you should configure CloudFront to only forward those HTTP cookies and HTTP headers that really vary the content (not cookies that are only used on the client side or by third-party applications, for example, for web analytics).

A is correct, because the dynamic content is also cached - which means first time the data is brought in, then subsequently it does not have to go to the source to get the same content. There are many ways to set these combinations up, even with Route 53, but of the given options, "A" seems to fit the bill best.

CloudFront is suitable for both static and dynamic content.

The best approach combines multi-region deployment for dynamic content and Amazon CloudFront for static content. However, none of the options explicitly describe this combination. Among the given options, Option B is the best because: It uses two regions to reduce latency for dynamic content. Route 53 latency routing ensures users are directed to the closest region. For a more optimal solution (not listed in the options): Deploy the application stack in multiple AWS Regions. Use Amazon CloudFront to serve static content from edge locations. Use Route 53 latency routing to direct users to the closest region for dynamic content.

Amazon cloud front is a better choice in terms of delivering both static and dynamic content globally. Also option B says deploy the application stack to only two regions. but the use case is to access the portal globally. Don't think Amazon Route 53 latency routing policy will have a bigger impact in terms of low latency.

Ans B - "If your application is hosted in multiple AWS Regions, you can improve performance for your users by serving their requests from the AWS Region that provides the lowest latency" ...because it needs to be dynamic: "Latency between hosts on the internet can change over time as a result of changes in network connectivity and routing. Latency-based routing is based on latency measurements taken over a period of time, and the measurements reflect these changes. A request that is routed to the Oregon Region this week might be routed to the Singapore Region next week." https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/routing-policy-latency.html

B for sure

With Amazon CloudFront, your end users connections are terminated at CloudFront locations closer to them, which helps in reducing the overall round trip time required to establish a connection. This is irrespective of static a dynamic content.

You can still have improved performance by distributing the dynamic traffic through CDN instead of ALB. Refer below link. Also for other 2 options, using just 2 other regions for world wide distribution doesn't make much of a sense. https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/dynamic-content/

CloudFront for Static Content: By leveraging Amazon CloudFront, static content such as images, stylesheets, and scripts can be cached and distributed globally across a network of edge locations. This ensures that users receive static content from the nearest edge location, reducing latency and improving performance. Serve Dynamic Content from ALB: Since dynamic content requires real-time processing and cannot be effectively cached at edge locations, serving dynamic content directly from the Application Load Balancer (ALB) is appropriate. The ALB can handle dynamic requests efficiently within the AWS Region where the application is deployed.

CloudFront improves the performance, availability, and security of your dynamic content but not the latency as compared to Route 53 Latency Routing policy. Hence option B https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/dynamic-content/

I choose option B. While CloudFront can accelerate content delivery by caching static content at edge locations, it may not be the most effective solution in this scenario. Since the portal delivers a mixture of static and dynamic content, leveraging Route 53 latency routing for dynamic content delivery ensures that users are directed to the nearest AWS Region hosting the dynamic content.

"Least amount of latency for all users" "across the world" = CloudFront, thus B and D are out. Also, deploying the stack in "two regions" would benefit those two regions, but not users "across the world". CloudFront can also cache dynamic content, thus A.

Answer is option A: Earth Networks uses a CDN so that they can provide dynamic and personalized web based content quickly to their users with very low latency and high performing response times. Specifically, they need to be able to provide local information to the end user, in near real time, and need a CDN that allows them to adjust things like time to live, query strings, and cookie information so that they can pass all that information back to the origin to pull just what the user needs.

Those are personalized content - where CloudFront could not help much.