Practice Exams:

View All

Amazon AWS Solutions Architect Professional SAP-C02 Replatforming Compute Containers Storage Practice Test

Domain 4.3 • 24 original questions

This AWS SAP-C02 AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional practice test focuses on replatforming compute containers storage and database selection 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

During a resilience assessment at Woodgrove Bank, the enterprise architect is designing a analytics pipeline. The requirement is to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 31 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.

Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Use migration discovery and assessment tooling such as Migration Hub and application inventory data to build a dependency-aware portfolio assessment
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership

Correct answer: D

Why: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Option review:

A: 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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

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 can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

D: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Learning point: Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership. Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. In this variant, the decision also has to work while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Question 2

Relecloud Systems operates a media processing platform. In a new workload design, the cloud financial management lead must choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 38 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

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
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration

Correct answer: C

Why: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Option review:

A: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of 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 directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

D: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Learning point: Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application. AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. In this variant, the decision also has to work while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Question 3

A security architect at Fabrikam Health is reviewing a global web application. The business requires the team to reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 45 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 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
Use AWS Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope
Use Organizations and Control Tower with a defined account/OU model, guardrails, and delegated administration for the migration landing zone

Correct answer: B

Why: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Option review:

A: 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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

B: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control 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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Learning point: 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. Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. In this variant, the decision also has to work while fitting the change into a repeatable migration wave.

Question 4

Trey Research is changing its order-processing system as part of a global expansion project. Which AWS approach best enables the team to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint? The current estate includes 5 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Use Organizations and Control Tower with a defined account/OU model, guardrails, and delegated administration for the migration landing zone
Use TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together
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: A

Option review:

A: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate 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 can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

Question 5

Which AWS architecture principle or service combination best addresses this requirement for Northwind Media: choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint? The current estate includes 12 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.

Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
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: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

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 directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

Question 6

For a media processing platform at Coho Financial, a migration wave planning session identifies one priority: reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 19 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 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 TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together
Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership

Correct answer: A

Option review:

A: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

C: 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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of with a defined cutover and rollback checkpoint.

Question 7

Lamna Healthcare has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its global web application is to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline. Which option is best? The current estate includes 26 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.

Classify each workload using the 7Rs and document the business and technical rationale for the selected disposition
Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration

Correct answer: C

Why: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

B: 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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

C: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

D: 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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Learning point: Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership. Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. In this variant, the decision also has to work without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Question 8

While conducting a security design review, the network architect at Fourth Coffee needs to choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access without weakening the landing-zone security baseline. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 33 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use migration discovery and assessment tooling such as Migration Hub and application inventory data to build a dependency-aware portfolio assessment
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
Use TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together

Correct answer: C

Why: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Option review:

A: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

B: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

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 directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Learning point: Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application. AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. In this variant, the decision also has to work without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Question 9

During a modernization initiative at Consolidated Messenger, the enterprise architect is designing a analytics pipeline. The requirement is to reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control without weakening the landing-zone security baseline. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 40 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.

Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
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: D

Why: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

D: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Learning point: 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. Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. In this variant, the decision also has to work without weakening the landing-zone security baseline.

Question 10

Litware Manufacturing is documenting its target-state architecture. Which choice most accurately addresses the need to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate while preserving data integrity through cutover? The current estate includes 47 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

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
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required

Correct answer: B

Option review:

B: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving data integrity through cutover.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

Question 11

A security architect at Humongous Insurance is reviewing a global web application. The business requires the team to choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access while preserving data integrity through cutover. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 7 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 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
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application

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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

B: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

C: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

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 directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving data integrity through cutover.

Question 12

Tailspin Logistics is changing its order-processing system as part of a hybrid connectivity redesign. Which AWS approach best enables the team to reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control while preserving data integrity through cutover? The current estate includes 14 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.

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
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Classify each workload using the 7Rs and document the business and technical rationale for the selected disposition

Correct answer: A

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 can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while preserving data integrity through cutover.

Question 13

An architecture board at Alpine Sports asks the site reliability architect to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate while minimizing business interruption during migration for a analytics pipeline. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 21 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.

Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required
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 AWS Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope

Correct answer: A

Option review:

B: 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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

D: 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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

Question 14

For a media processing platform at Adventure Works, a new workload design identifies one priority: choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access while minimizing business interruption during migration. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 28 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

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 the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
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: B

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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

Question 15

A principal architect asks which AWS approach is intended to reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control while minimizing business interruption during migration. What is the best answer? The current estate includes 35 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.

Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
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
Use migration discovery and assessment tooling such as Migration Hub and application inventory data to build a dependency-aware portfolio assessment

Correct answer: B

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 can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control 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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while minimizing business interruption during migration.

Question 16

While conducting a global expansion project, the network architect at Contoso Retail needs to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 42 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 AWS Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Use Organizations and Control Tower with a defined account/OU model, guardrails, and delegated administration for the migration landing zone

Correct answer: C

Why: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

C: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Learning point: Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership. Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. In this variant, the decision also has to work while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Question 17

During a multi-account governance review at Lucerne Publishing, the enterprise architect is designing a analytics pipeline. The requirement is to choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 49 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
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application

Correct answer: D

Why: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Learning point: Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application. AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. In this variant, the decision also has to work while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Question 18

Datum Analytics operates a media processing platform. In a migration wave planning session, the cloud financial management lead must reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 9 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.
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
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 TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together
Use appropriate Direct Connect or VPN connectivity, Route 53/DNS coexistence, encryption, and tightly scoped network/security controls for the migration path

Correct answer: B

Why: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

B: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Learning point: 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. Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. In this variant, the decision also has to work while accounting for workload dependencies before sequencing the move.

Question 19

A security architect at Wide World Importers is reviewing a global web application. The business requires the team to decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 16 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.

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
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 TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together

Correct answer: B

Why: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Option review:

A: 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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Learning point: Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership. Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Question 20

Which solution is the strongest match for the following professional-level architecture requirement: choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts? The current estate includes 23 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Select ECS or EKS according to orchestration requirements and use Fargate when serverless container compute meets the workload needs
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window
Use migration discovery and assessment tooling such as Migration Hub and application inventory data to build a dependency-aware portfolio assessment
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application

Correct answer: D

Why: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Option review:

A: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

C: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Learning point: Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application. AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Question 21

An architecture board at Blue Yonder Airlines asks the site reliability architect to reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts for a analytics pipeline. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 30 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 the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
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 TCO analysis plus dependency-aware wave planning to prioritize migrations and group workloads that should move together

Correct answer: C

Why: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

C: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Learning point: 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. Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping governance consistent across destination accounts.

Question 22

For a media processing platform at City Power, a production readiness review identifies one priority: decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 37 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership
Use AWS DMS for ongoing data replication and AWS SCT when heterogeneous schema conversion is required
Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration
Choose DataSync, Transfer Family, S3 transfer features, or Snow Family according to source protocol, bandwidth, data volume, and migration window

Correct answer: A

Why: Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Option review:

C: 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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

D: 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 decide whether a migrated application should stay on EC2, move to Elastic Beanstalk, or run in ECS/EKS/Fargate under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Learning point: Select EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, ECS, EKS, or Fargate based on runtime constraints, orchestration requirements, portability, and desired operational ownership. Compute and container choices should match application packaging and the amount of infrastructure and orchestration control the team actually needs. In this variant, the decision also has to work without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Question 23

Proseware Labs has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its global web application is to choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed. Which option is best? The current estate includes 44 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 Application Migration Service for supported rehost migrations and discovery tooling to understand server and dependency scope
Choose purpose-built storage and database services per component, using managed elasticity and caching where they fit the access pattern
Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application
Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration

Correct answer: C

Why: AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

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 directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

D: 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 choose among EBS, EFS, FSx, S3, and Storage Gateway for block, file, object, or hybrid access under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Learning point: Select the AWS storage service whose access protocol, durability, throughput, sharing model, and hybrid requirements match the application. AWS storage services expose different block, file, object, and hybrid semantics; the correct target depends on how the application reads and writes data. In this variant, the decision also has to work without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Question 24

While conducting a hybrid connectivity redesign, the network architect at Southridge Video needs to reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 4 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 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
Integrate IAM Identity Center or Directory Service with the enterprise identity source and use temporary least-privilege roles during migration

Correct answer: B

Why: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

B: Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

D: 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 reduce database administration when the application does not require operating-system-level database control under the additional constraint of without forcing an unrelated refactor before the migration can proceed.

Learning point: 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. Database replatforming should balance access model, compatibility, scale, availability, and the operational burden the organization is willing to own. 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: