A development team has launched a new application that is hosted on Amazon EC2 instances inside a development VPC. A solutions architect needs to create a new VPC in the same account. The new VPC will be peered with the development VPC. The VPC CIDR block for the development VPC is 192.168.0.0/24. The solutions architect needs to create a CIDR block for the new VPC. The CIDR block must be valid for a VPC peering connection to the development VPC.What is the SMALLEST CIDR block that meets these requirements?
Answer(s): D
A) 10.0.1.0/32 is too small for a VPC CIDR block; a VPC requires a non-hosted CIDR range that supports at least two IPs per subnet and the VPC itself must have a valid size. B) 192.168.0.0/24 overlaps entirely with the development VPC’s CIDR, which is not allowed for VPC peering. C) 192.168.1.0/32 is a single IP, not a valid VPC CIDR. D) 10.0.1.0/24 provides a non-overlapping, valid CIDR block suitable for VPC peering with 192.168.0.0/24 and satisfies size requirements.
A company deploys an application on five Amazon EC2 instances. An Application Load Balancer (ALB) distributes traffic to the instances by using a target group. The average CPU usage on each of the instances is below 10% most of the time, with occasional surges to 65%.A solutions architect needs to implement a solution to automate the scalability of the application. The solution must optimize the cost of the architecture and must ensure that the application has enough CPU resources when surges occur.Which solution will meet these requirements?
Answer(s): B
Deploying an Auto Scaling group with target tracking on CPUUtilization ensures automatic, cost-effective scaling in response to traffic surges, while maintaining a minimum and maximum instance count and using the existing ALB and target group. B is correct because it uses target tracking with a sensible target value (50%), provides scalable capacity (min 2, max 6, desired 3), and leverages the ALB for load distribution.A is incorrect because terminating instances based on low CPU is destabilizing and not a typical scaling pattern; it can reduce capacity during demand.C is incorrect because it lacks a dynamic scaling policy, risking insufficient capacity during spikes.D is incorrect because relying on manual SNS notifications without automated scaling fails to meet the automation and cost-optimization requirements.
A company is running a critical business application on Amazon EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. The EC2 instances run in an Auto Scaling group and access an Amazon RDS DB instance.The design did not pass an operational review because the EC2 instances and the DB instance are all located in a single Availability Zone. A solutions architect must update the design to use a second Availability Zone.Which solution will make the application highly available?
Answer(s): C
A subnet per AZ, and Multi-AZ DB deployment ensures EC2ASG spans both AZs and RDS provides synchronous replication across AZs for failover. Option C matches: subnet in each AZ, ASG distributes across AZs, RDS Multi-AZ for high availability. A) Incorrect: “DB instance with connections to each network” is vague and not a standard HA design; Cross-AZ DB sync requires Multi-AZ, not arbitrary connections. B) Incorrect: Subnets “extend across both AZs” are not valid; subnets must reside in a single AZ. D) Incorrect: Subnet across both AZs is not valid; also only one subnet cannot be in multiple AZs, and Multi-AZ DB deployment paired with properly segmented per-AZ subnets is required.
A research laboratory needs to process approximately 8 TB of data. The laboratory requires sub-millisecond latencies and a minimum throughput of 6 GBps for the storage subsystem. Hundreds of Amazon EC2 instances that run Amazon Linux will distribute and process the data.Which solution will meet the performance requirements?
The correct answer is B.A) FSx for NetApp ONTAP with ALL tiering cannot provide the combined sub-millisecond latency and 6 GBps for hundreds of Linux EC2s; ONTAP typically adds latency and complexity for Lustre-style HPC workloads. B) FSx for Lustre with SSD storage and S3 import/export delivers high-throughput (often 6 GBps+ with SSD) and sub-millisecond metadata/latency for parallel EC2 access, ideal for HPC-style processing with data in S3. C) HDD-based FSx Lustre lowers throughput and increases latency, failing the 6 GBps requirement. D) FSx for NetApp ONTAP with NONE tiering also risks higher latency and does not match Lustre’s HPC throughput profile for large data sets.
A company needs to migrate a legacy application from an on-premises data center to the AWS Cloud because of hardware capacity constraints. The application runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The application’s database storage continues to grow over time.What should a solutions architect do to meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
The most cost-effective, scalable approach is to use EC2 Reserved Instances for the steady-state, always-on application and Aurora with Reserved Instances for the growing relational database, providing billed capacity savings and managed, auto-scaling-friendly storage with high performance. A) Spot Instances are not suitable for 24/7 production due to interruption risk; S3 is not a direct relational storage replacement for a growing DB. B) RDS On-Demand is more expensive for continuous use, and RDS on-demand with EC2 RI mismatches persistence needs. D) On-Demand EC2 increases costs; RDS Reserved Instances are not compatible with Aurora (Aurora uses its own reservation model).
Post your Comments and Discuss Amazon SAA-C03 exam prep with other Community members:
Our website is free, but we have to fight against AI bots and content theft. We're sorry for the inconvenience caused by these security measures. You can access the rest of the SAA-C03 content, but please register or login to continue.