Pass the Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Associate SAA-C03 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

This solution is the most cost-effective and efficient way to break down costs per application.

Tagging Resources: By tagging all AWS resources with a specific key (e.g., " cost " ) and a value representing the application ' s name, you can easily identify and categorize costs associated with each application. This tagging strategy allows for granular tracking of costs within AWS.

Activating Cost Allocation Tags: Once tags are applied to resources, you need to activate cost allocation tags in the AWS Billing and Cost Management console. This ensures that the costs associated with each tag are included in your billing reports and can be used for cost analysis.

AWS Cost Explorer: Cost Explorer is a powerful tool that allows you to visualize, understand, and manage your AWS costs and usage over time. You can filter and group your cost data by the tags you’ve applied to resources, enabling you to easily see the cost breakdown for each application. Cost Explorer also supports generating regular reports, which can be scheduled and emailed to stakeholders.

Why Not Other Options?:

Option A (AWS Budgets): AWS Budgets is more focused on setting cost and usage thresholds and monitoring them, rather than providing detailed cost breakdowns by application.

Option B (Load Cost and Usage Reports into RDS): This approach is less cost-effective and involves more operational overhead, as it requires setting up and maintaining an RDS instance and running SQL queries.

Option D (AWS Billing and Cost Management Console): While you can download bills, this method is more manual and less dynamic compared to using Cost Explorer with activated tags.

AWS References:

AWS Tagging Strategies- Overview of how to use tagging to organize and track AWS resources.

AWS Cost Explorer- Details on how to use Cost Explorer to analyze costs.

Amazon S3 Storage Lens with advanced activity metrics is the most operationally efficient answer because AWS documentation explicitly says you can use S3 Storage Lens advanced metrics to identify “cold” buckets, meaning buckets whose objects are no longer accessed or are accessed only rarely. That is exactly the requirement in the question. This avoids building a custom analytics workflow on top of CloudTrail or CloudWatch metrics. The standard S3 console does not provide the same purpose-built fleet-level analysis for cold-bucket identification. Athena and CloudTrail can be used for access analysis, but they require more setup, data handling, and query maintenance. S3 Storage Lens is the native managed feature for this storage-optimization scenario. (AWS Documentation)

============

Amazon S3 and AWS Lambda form a classic serverless decoupling pattern for upload-and-process workflows. AWS documents that Amazon S3 can publishevent notificationswhen objects are created and that these events can invoke aLambda functionfor processing. This design automatically scales for high upload rates, durably stores the original images in S3, and cleanly separates upload from resize processing. Storing processed results in a second S3 bucket is also a common pattern that keeps originals and derivatives separate. The EC2 and EFS options add more operational work and do not provide the same event-driven elasticity.

============

Comprehensive and Detailed 250 to 300 words of Explanation (AWS documentation-based, no links):

The requirements “shard-level control” and “custom checkpointing” point directly to the Kinesis Client Library (KCL), which is designed for building consumer applications that coordinate shard processing, perform load balancing across workers, and manage checkpoints in a durable store (commonly DynamoDB) with fine-grained control. While Lambda can consume from Kinesis Data Streams, its event source mapping abstracts shard coordination and checkpoint behavior; it is not the best fit when you explicitly need custom checkpointing logic and shard-level control beyond the managed integration.

Running the existing Lambda processing logic as a long-running consumer in Amazon ECS on AWS Fargate allows the company to operate a scalable KCL-based consumer fleet without managing servers. With Fargate, AWS manages the underlying compute while the application maintains direct control over shard assignment and checkpoint timing/frequency through KCL—exactly what the requirement calls for. Latency is minimized because the consumer reads directly from Kinesis Data Streams and processes records continuously, avoiding additional buffering layers or store-and-forward patterns.

Option A adds significant latency by delivering to S3 through Firehose and then triggering processing from S3 object notifications; this is optimized for delivery and batch-style processing, not low-latency streaming with shard-level control. Options B and D introduce SQS between Kinesis and processing, which adds another hop and does not inherently provide shard-level control or KCL-style checkpointing; FIFO also limits throughput and is not intended for high-scale streaming fan-in. Increasing Lambda provisioned concurrency can reduce cold starts, but it does not solve the need for custom checkpointing at the shard level.

Therefore, C best meets shard-level control and custom checkpointing requirements with the least latency by using a direct KCL consumer on a managed compute platform (Fargate).

The least-privilege design is to create an IAM policy that explicitly lists the full ARNs of only the S3 buckets the application must access, then attach that policy to the ECS task role. The ECS task role provides AWS permissions directly to the application container, which is the correct identity boundary for ECS workloads. Attaching permissions to the instance role is broader because all tasks on the container instance could potentially inherit access through the EC2 host role. A wildcard ARN is not least privilege because it can unintentionally match extra buckets. Tag-based access can be useful in some ABAC designs, but the requirement is a specific group of buckets in one account and Region; explicit ARNs provide clearer least-privilege access.

To track costs by department, you must activate the custom department tag as a cost allocation tag in the AWS Organizations management account. Once activated, Cost Explorer and cost and usage reports can group costs by this tag for all linked accounts. The most operationally efficient way is to activate only the relevant department tag and create a cost and usage report grouped by that tag.

AWS Documentation Extract:

“To use a tag for cost allocation, you must activate it in the AWS Billing and Cost Management console. After activation, you can use the tag to group costs in Cost Explorer and reports.”

(Source: AWS Cost Management documentation)

A, E: aws:createdBy is not related to department cost grouping and is unnecessary.

B: Applying extra filters is optional; D is more direct and operationally efficient.

Amazon ECS is the lowest-overhead choice because it avoids the control-plane and node-management work of EKS or raw EC2 while still supporting highly available multi-AZ placement. AWS ECS guidance notes that the service scheduler canspread tasks across Availability Zones, and target tracking scaling is a standard way to scale ECS services based on demand. Setting a minimum capacity of 3 ensures at least one task can remain in each Availability Zone, improving resilience. The EC2 and EKS options require more infrastructure management, and Lambda is not the right fit for generic containerized application workloads. Therefore, ECS with spread placement across AZs and service auto scaling is the best answer.

AWS Shield Advanced provides advanced DDoS protection for AWS workloads, including EC2, CloudFront, and RDS. When integrated with CloudFront, Shield Advanced offers comprehensive detection and mitigation against large and sophisticated DDoS attacks, along with 24x7 access to the AWS DDoS Response Team (DRT). AWS WAF provides application-level protection, but for complete DDoS mitigation, Shield Advanced is the recommended solution.

Reference Extract from AWS Documentation / Study Guide:

" AWS Shield Advanced provides expanded DDoS attack protection for applications running on AWS. It offers always-on detection and automatic inline mitigations that minimize application downtime and latency. "

Source: AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Official Study Guide, Security and DDoS Protection section.

In Amazon EKS, Kubernetes stores objects such as Secrets in the cluster’s etcd key-value store. By default, Kubernetes Secrets are base64-encoded and are not automatically encrypted at the application object level unless encryption is configured. Amazon EKS provides a managed capability to encrypt Kubernetes Secrets at rest in etcd using AWS Key Management Service (KMS). The requirement explicitly states that “all secrets that are stored in Amazon EKS must be encrypted in the Kubernetes etcd key-value store,” which maps directly to enabling EKS secrets encryption with a customer-managed KMS key.

Option B is exactly this: create a KMS key and enable EKS KMS secrets encryption on the cluster. With this enabled, EKS uses envelope encryption so that Secrets are encrypted when stored in etcd, and decrypt operations are controlled through KMS permissions. This is the standard, AWS-native method that fulfills the requirement without requiring application changes or external secret stores for the encryption-at-rest requirement in etcd.

Option A (Secrets Manager) is a strong service for secret lifecycle management and rotation, but it does not by itself guarantee that Kubernetes Secrets stored in etcd are encrypted unless EKS secrets encryption is also enabled or the cluster avoids storing secrets in etcd entirely. The question specifically targets etcd encryption. Option C is unrelated: the EBS CSI driver concerns persistent volumes, not etcd secret encryption. Option D concerns EBS volume encryption and a specific AWS-managed key alias used for EBS; it also does not address etcd encryption for Kubernetes Secrets.

Therefore, B is the correct solution because it directly enables encryption of Kubernetes Secrets within etcd using KMS.

AWS Budgets supports budget actions that can automatically apply controls when a threshold is reached. In this case, because the accounts are non-production, it is appropriate to enforce a hard control by applying an SCP to the OU to deny additional usage and to stop running EC2 instances through a notification-driven workflow. AWS documentation describes AWS Budgets as the service for setting cost thresholds and taking automated actions, which makes it more appropriate than Cost Explorer reporting, CloudWatch alarms, or Cost Anomaly Detection for direct budget enforcement. Since the requirement is to prevent the team from exceeding the project budget, the budget-action-based control is the strongest solution.

AWS Lambda is event driven and “scales automatically with the number of requests,” charging per request and compute duration in milliseconds; you can schedule with Amazon EventBridge rules. Allocating 1 GB memory proportionally increases available CPU, which suits short CPU bursts. For a 10-second, once-per-hour job, Lambda eliminates instance idle time, providing the lowest cost and no servers to manage. Fargate tasks (A) bill per-second with a 1-minute minimum and require container packaging; for a 10-second job, costs are higher than Lambda. Options C and D keep EC2 management overhead and either maintain instances or add start/stop orchestration complexity; EC2 costs dominate because the instance sits idle for 59+ minutes each hour. Therefore, Lambda + EventBridge is the most cost-effective and operationally simple solution.

Amazon S3 is the most cost-effective option for archiving data. Using AWS DMS to migrate to S3 in Apache Parquet format provides an optimized columnar format for analytics. By storing in S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval, costs are minimized while maintaining compliance with retention. When queries are required, Athena can run SQL queries directly on archived data in S3 without provisioning infrastructure. Options A and B rely on maintaining RDS or EC2 instances, which increases cost and operational overhead. Option C requires full restores to EC2 before running queries, which is slow and inefficient. Therefore, D provides the lowest operational overhead and direct query capability with Athena.

Amixed Auto Scaling groupwith both On-Demand and Spot Instances is the best answer because AWS documents that mixed instances groups let you launch and automatically scale a fleet of On-Demand and Spot Instances in a single Auto Scaling group to optimize cost while maintaining scale and performance. Since the workload can tolerate occasional disruptions, Spot is appropriate, but keeping some On-Demand capacity adds stability. This is a more practical architecture than moving the whole workload to Spot alone. Continuing with only On-Demand or buying Reserved Instances would not optimize cost as well for variable usage.

============

This solution meets the requirements of a serverless solution, encryption, replication, and SQL analysis with the least operational overhead. Amazon Athena is a serverless interactive query service that can analyze data in S3 using standard SQL. S3 Cross-Region Replication (CRR) can replicate encrypted objects to an S3 bucket in another Region automatically. Server-side encryption with AWS KMS multi-Region keys (SSE-KMS) can encrypt the data at rest using keys that are replicated across multiple Regions. Creating a new S3 bucket can avoid potential conflicts with existing data or configurations.

Option B is incorrect because Amazon RDS is not a serverless solution and it cannot query data in S3 directly. Option C is incorrect because server-side encryption with Amazon S3 managed encryption keys (SSE-S3) does not use KMS keys and it does not support multi-Region replication. Option D is incorrect because Amazon RDS is not a serverless solution and it cannot query data in S3 directly. It is also incorrect for the same reason as option C.

Amazon S3 is cheapest and can be accessed from anywhere.

**AWS PrivateLink provides private connectivity between VPCs, AWS services, and your on-premises networks, without exposing your traffic to the public internet**. AWS PrivateLink makes it easy to connect services across different accounts and VPCs to significantly simplify your network architecture. Interface **VPC endpoints**, powered by AWS PrivateLink, connect you to services hosted by AWS Partners and supported solutions available in AWS Marketplace. https://aws.amazon.com/privatelink/

Many applications, including those built on modern serverless architectures, can have a large number of open connections to the database server and may open and close database connections at a high rate, exhausting database memory and compute resources. Amazon RDS Proxy allows applications to pool and share connections established with the database, improving database efficiency and application scalability.https://aws.amazon.com/id/rds/proxy/

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_RestoreFromSnapshot.html#USER_RestoreFromSnapshot.CON

Under "Encrypt unencrypted resources" -https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/EBSEncryption.html

This solution meets the requirements of a customer-facing application that has a clearly defined access pattern throughout the year and a variable number of reads and writes that depend on the time of year. Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed NoSQL database service that can handle any level of request traffic and data size. DynamoDB auto scaling can automatically adjust the provisioned read and write capacity based on the actual workload. DynamoDB on-demand backups can create full backups of the tables for data protection and archival purposes. DynamoDB Streams can capture a time-ordered sequence of item-level modifications in the tables for audit purposes.

Option B is incorrect because Amazon Redshift is a data warehouse service that is designed for analytical workloads, not for customer-facing applications. Option C is incorrect because Amazon RDS with Provisioned IOPS can provide consistent performance for relational databases, but it may not be able to handle unpredictable spikes in traffic and data size. Option D is incorrect because Amazon Aurora MySQL with auto scaling can provide high performance and availability for relational databases, but it does not support audit logging as a parameter.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/private-content-restricting-access-to-s3.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/distribution-web-awswaf.html