Practice Exams:

View All

Amazon AWS Solutions Architect Professional SAP-C02 Modernization Serverless Decoupling Practice Test

Domain 4.4 • 24 original questions

This AWS SAP-C02 AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional practice test focuses on modernization serverless decoupling containers purpose-built databases and integration through original architecture scenarios aligned to the current AWS Certification exam guide. Use the full ExamSnap SAP-C02 collection for practice across all four content domains. For broader exam preparation, review the Amazon AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional SAP-C02 Exam Dumps page.

Instructions: Select the best answer for each question. Review the explanation after answering; each distractor includes a reason it is not the best choice for that scenario.

Question 1

Coho Financial operates a healthcare records application. In a hybrid connectivity redesign, the network architect must run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 36 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application

Correct answer: A

Why: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Option review:

A: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

B: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

C: DMS supports database data movement and change replication; SCT assists with schema and code conversion when source and target engines differ. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

D: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Learning point: Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate. Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Question 2

A enterprise architect at Lamna Healthcare is reviewing a enterprise ERP system. The business requires the team to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 43 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. Prefer an AWS-managed capability when it meets the requirements with less operational overhead.

Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
Use Organizations and Control Tower with a defined account/OU model, guardrails, and delegated administration for the migration landing zone

Correct answer: B

Why: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Option review:

A: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

B: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

C: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

D: A governed landing zone gives migration teams repeatable account baselines and prevents each wave from inventing its own security and governance model. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Learning point: Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs. AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. In this variant, the decision also has to work while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Question 3

Fourth Coffee is changing its data lake platform as part of a new workload design. Which AWS approach best enables the team to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave? The current estate includes 3 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required
Classify each workload using the 7Rs and document the business and technical rationale for the selected disposition
Use Organizations and Control Tower with a defined account/OU model, guardrails, and delegated administration for the migration landing zone
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern

Correct answer: D

Why: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Option review:

A: DMS supports database data movement and change replication; SCT assists with schema and code conversion when source and target engines differ. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

B: The 7Rs provide a portfolio decision framework; the right choice depends on constraints, value, risk, and desired modernization depth. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

C: A governed landing zone gives migration teams repeatable account baselines and prevents each wave from inventing its own security and governance model. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

D: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Learning point: Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern. Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Question 4

An architecture board at Consolidated Messenger asks the security architect to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint for a customer-facing API. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 10 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. The design must preserve security and auditability while meeting the stated objective.

Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required
Use migration discovery and assessment tooling such as Migration Hub and application inventory data to build a dependency-aware portfolio assessment
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate

Correct answer: D

Option review:

A: DMS supports database data movement and change replication; SCT assists with schema and code conversion when source and target engines differ. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

B: Migration planning starts with reliable inventory, ownership, dependency, and utilization data so scope and sequencing reflect the real estate. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

C: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

D: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

Question 5

Litware Manufacturing is documenting its target-state architecture. Which choice most accurately addresses the need to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint? The current estate includes 17 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Use TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Select the purpose-built managed database that matches relational, key-value, search, or other access patterns, retaining self-managed EC2 only when required controls justify it
Classify each workload using the 7Rs and document the business and technical rationale for the selected disposition

Correct answer: B

Option review:

A: Migration sequence and business case should account for dependencies, operational readiness, transition costs, and expected steady-state economics. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

C: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

D: The 7Rs provide a portfolio decision framework; the right choice depends on constraints, value, risk, and desired modernization depth. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

Question 6

Humongous Insurance has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its enterprise ERP system is to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint. Which option is best? The current estate includes 24 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. Choose the option that best meets the stated constraints without introducing an unrelated redesign.

Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path

Correct answer: C

Option review:

A: Federated identity and role-based access preserve centralized governance and avoid proliferating long-lived local credentials during migration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

B: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

C: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

D: Migration networks often coexist with production; connectivity, DNS, encryption, and access controls must be designed for both the transition and final state. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

Question 7

While conducting a migration wave planning session, the migration architect at Tailspin Logistics needs to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows without weakening the landing-zone security baseline. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 31 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Use TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together

Correct answer: A

Why: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Option review:

A: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

B: Migration networks often coexist with production; connectivity, DNS, encryption, and access controls must be designed for both the transition and final state. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

C: AWS provides online and offline data-transfer services; the correct choice depends on data size, network capacity, protocol, and acceptable transfer duration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

D: Migration sequence and business case should account for dependencies, operational readiness, transition costs, and expected steady-state economics. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Learning point: Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate. Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Question 8

During a post-incident architecture review at Alpine Sports, the principal solutions architect is designing a customer-facing API. The requirement is to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints without weakening the landing-zone security baseline. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 38 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. Prefer an AWS-managed capability when it meets the requirements with less operational overhead.

Use AWS Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Use TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together
Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required

Correct answer: B

Why: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Option review:

A: Application Migration Service is designed for lift-and-shift server migration with continuous replication and controlled cutover. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

B: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

C: Migration sequence and business case should account for dependencies, operational readiness, transition costs, and expected steady-state economics. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

D: DMS supports database data movement and change replication; SCT assists with schema and code conversion when source and target engines differ. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Learning point: Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs. AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. In this variant, the decision also has to work without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Question 9

Adventure Works operates a healthcare records application. In a security design review, the network architect must replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component without weakening the landing-zone security baseline. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 45 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Use Organizations and Control Tower with a defined account/OU model, guardrails, and delegated administration for the migration landing zone

Correct answer: A

Why: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Option review:

A: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

B: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

C: AWS provides online and offline data-transfer services; the correct choice depends on data size, network capacity, protocol, and acceptable transfer duration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

D: A governed landing zone gives migration teams repeatable account baselines and prevents each wave from inventing its own security and governance model. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Learning point: Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern. Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Question 10

A principal architect asks which AWS approach is intended to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows while preserving data integrity through cutover. What is the best answer? The current estate includes 5 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. The design must preserve security and auditability while meeting the stated objective.

Use AWS Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern

Correct answer: B

Option review:

A: Application Migration Service is designed for lift-and-shift server migration with continuous replication and controlled cutover. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

B: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving data integrity through cutover.

C: Migration networks often coexist with production; connectivity, DNS, encryption, and access controls must be designed for both the transition and final state. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

D: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

Question 11

Contoso Retail is changing its data lake platform as part of a production readiness review. Which AWS approach best enables the team to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints while preserving data integrity through cutover? The current estate includes 12 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Classify each workload using the 7Rs and document the business and technical rationale for the selected disposition
Select the purpose-built managed database that matches relational, key-value, search, or other access patterns, retaining self-managed EC2 only when required controls justify it

Correct answer: B

Option review:

A: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

C: The 7Rs provide a portfolio decision framework; the right choice depends on constraints, value, risk, and desired modernization depth. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

D: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

Question 12

An architecture board at Lucerne Publishing asks the security architect to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component while preserving data integrity through cutover for a customer-facing API. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 19 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. Choose the option that best meets the stated constraints without introducing an unrelated redesign.

Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Use migration discovery and assessment tooling such as Migration Hub and application inventory data to build a dependency-aware portfolio assessment
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path

Correct answer: A

Option review:

B: Migration planning starts with reliable inventory, ownership, dependency, and utilization data so scope and sequencing reflect the real estate. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

C: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

Question 13

For a healthcare records application at A. Datum Analytics, a hybrid connectivity redesign identifies one priority: run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows while minimizing business interruption during migration. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 26 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Use Organizations and Control Tower with a defined account/OU model, guardrails, and delegated administration for the migration landing zone
Select the purpose-built managed database that matches relational, key-value, search, or other access patterns, retaining self-managed EC2 only when required controls justify it
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate

Correct answer: D

Option review:

A: AWS provides online and offline data-transfer services; the correct choice depends on data size, network capacity, protocol, and acceptable transfer duration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

B: A governed landing zone gives migration teams repeatable account baselines and prevents each wave from inventing its own security and governance model. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

C: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

Question 14

Wide World Importers has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its enterprise ERP system is to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints while minimizing business interruption during migration. Which option is best? The current estate includes 33 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. Prefer an AWS-managed capability when it meets the requirements with less operational overhead.

Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership

Correct answer: C

Option review:

A: Federated identity and role-based access preserve centralized governance and avoid proliferating long-lived local credentials during migration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

B: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

C: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while minimizing business interruption during migration.

D: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

Question 15

Which solution is the strongest match for the following professional-level architecture requirement: replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component while minimizing business interruption during migration? The current estate includes 40 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Classify each workload using the 7Rs and document the business and technical rationale for the selected disposition
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern

Correct answer: D

Option review:

A: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

B: AWS provides online and offline data-transfer services; the correct choice depends on data size, network capacity, protocol, and acceptable transfer duration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

C: The 7Rs provide a portfolio decision framework; the right choice depends on constraints, value, risk, and desired modernization depth. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

D: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while minimizing business interruption during migration.

Question 16

During a cost optimization workshop at Blue Yonder Airlines, the principal solutions architect is designing a customer-facing API. The requirement is to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 47 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. The design must preserve security and auditability while meeting the stated objective.

Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Classify each workload using the 7Rs and document the business and technical rationale for the selected disposition

Correct answer: C

Why: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Option review:

A: Migration networks often coexist with production; connectivity, DNS, encryption, and access controls must be designed for both the transition and final state. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

B: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

C: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

D: The 7Rs provide a portfolio decision framework; the right choice depends on constraints, value, risk, and desired modernization depth. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Learning point: Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate. Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Question 17

City Power operates a healthcare records application. In a global expansion project, the network architect must run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 7 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Select the purpose-built managed database that matches relational, key-value, search, or other access patterns, retaining self-managed EC2 only when required controls justify it
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership

Correct answer: B

Why: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Option review:

A: Migration networks often coexist with production; connectivity, DNS, encryption, and access controls must be designed for both the transition and final state. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

B: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Learning point: Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs. AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. In this variant, the decision also has to work while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Question 18

A enterprise architect at Proseware Labs is reviewing a enterprise ERP system. The business requires the team to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 14 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. Choose the option that best meets the stated constraints without introducing an unrelated redesign.

Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Use AWS Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope
Use TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together

Correct answer: B

Why: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Option review:

B: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

C: Application Migration Service is designed for lift-and-shift server migration with continuous replication and controlled cutover. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

D: Migration sequence and business case should account for dependencies, operational readiness, transition costs, and expected steady-state economics. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Learning point: Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern. Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Question 19

Southridge Video is changing its data lake platform as part of a migration wave planning session. Which AWS approach best enables the team to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts? The current estate includes 21 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path
Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Use migration discovery and assessment tooling such as Migration Hub and application inventory data to build a dependency-aware portfolio assessment

Correct answer: C

Why: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Option review:

A: Migration networks often coexist with production; connectivity, DNS, encryption, and access controls must be designed for both the transition and final state. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

B: Federated identity and role-based access preserve centralized governance and avoid proliferating long-lived local credentials during migration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

C: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

D: Migration planning starts with reliable inventory, ownership, dependency, and utilization data so scope and sequencing reflect the real estate. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Learning point: Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate. Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Question 20

Which AWS architecture principle or service combination best addresses this requirement for Woodgrove Bank: run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts? The current estate includes 28 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. Prefer an AWS-managed capability when it meets the requirements with less operational overhead.

Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
Use TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Select the purpose-built managed database that matches relational, key-value, search, or other access patterns, retaining self-managed EC2 only when required controls justify it

Correct answer: C

Why: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Option review:

A: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

B: Migration sequence and business case should account for dependencies, operational readiness, transition costs, and expected steady-state economics. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Learning point: Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs. AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Question 21

For a healthcare records application at Relecloud Systems, a security design review identifies one priority: replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 35 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Use Organizations and Control Tower with a defined account/OU model, guardrails, and delegated administration for the migration landing zone
Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern

Correct answer: D

Why: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Option review:

A: A governed landing zone gives migration teams repeatable account baselines and prevents each wave from inventing its own security and governance model. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

B: Migration networks often coexist with production; connectivity, DNS, encryption, and access controls must be designed for both the transition and final state. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

D: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Learning point: Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern. Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Question 22

Fabrikam Health has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its enterprise ERP system is to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed. Which option is best? The current estate includes 42 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. The design must preserve security and auditability while meeting the stated objective.

Select the purpose-built managed database that matches relational, key-value, search, or other access patterns, retaining self-managed EC2 only when required controls justify it
Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path
Use AWS Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope
Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate

Correct answer: D

Why: Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Option review:

A: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

C: Application Migration Service is designed for lift-and-shift server migration with continuous replication and controlled cutover. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run event-triggered business logic without managing servers and coordinate multi-step workflows under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Learning point: Use event-driven integration with services such as SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Step Functions, and Lambda to decouple components and remove server management where appropriate. Serverless and managed integration services can isolate failures, buffer bursts, and eliminate undifferentiated server operations for suitable workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Question 23

While conducting a production readiness review, the migration architect at Trey Research needs to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 49 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Classify each workload using the 7Rs and document the business and technical rationale for the selected disposition
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs

Correct answer: D

Why: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Option review:

A: The 7Rs provide a portfolio decision framework; the right choice depends on constraints, value, risk, and desired modernization depth. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

B: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

C: AWS provides online and offline data-transfer services; the correct choice depends on data size, network capacity, protocol, and acceptable transfer duration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to run containers without provisioning an EC2 worker fleet when serverless container execution satisfies the constraints under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

D: AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Learning point: Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs. AWS container options provide different levels of Kubernetes compatibility, AWS-native orchestration, and infrastructure ownership. In this variant, the decision also has to work without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Question 24

During a architecture review at Northwind Media, the principal solutions architect is designing a customer-facing API. The requirement is to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 9 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. Choose the option that best meets the stated constraints without introducing an unrelated redesign.

Use AWS Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope
Use TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together
Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern

Correct answer: D

Why: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Option review:

A: Application Migration Service is designed for lift-and-shift server migration with continuous replication and controlled cutover. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

B: Migration sequence and business case should account for dependencies, operational readiness, transition costs, and expected steady-state economics. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

C: DMS supports database data movement and change replication; SCT assists with schema and code conversion when source and target engines differ. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to replace a one-size-fits-all relational design with storage and database services matched to each component under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

D: Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Learning point: Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern. Modernization often improves scalability and operations by replacing one generalized data platform with services optimized for object, file, key-value, relational, or cache workloads. In this variant, the decision also has to work without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10

Question 11

Question 12

Question 13

Question 14

Question 15

Question 16

Question 17

Question 18

Question 19

Question 20

Question 21

Question 22

Question 23

Question 24

Related posts: