Practice Exams:

View All

Amazon AWS Solutions Architect Professional SAP-C02 RTO RPO Disaster Recovery Backup Practice Test

Domain 1.3 • 25 original questions

This AWS SAP-C02 AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional practice test focuses on rto rpo disaster recovery backup and automated recovery 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

For a batch settlement service at Relecloud Systems, a security design review identifies one priority: avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets while keeping administration centralized across accounts. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 30 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 health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out
Select Regions and Availability Zones by measuring user/network latency, service availability, data requirements, and failure-isolation needs
Match Savings Plans or Reserved Instances to predictable committed usage and use Spot Instances only for interruption-tolerant workloads
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation

Correct answer: D

Why: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Option review:

A: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

B: AWS Global Infrastructure choices should be driven by business latency, regulatory, service-availability, and resilience requirements rather than geography alone. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

C: AWS purchasing models trade commitment and flexibility for discounts; the workload interruption tolerance and usage predictability determine the best fit. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

D: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Learning point: Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation. RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Question 2

Fabrikam Health has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its machine learning inference service is to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure while keeping administration centralized across accounts. Which option is best? The current estate includes 37 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 Regions and Availability Zones by measuring user/network latency, service availability, data requirements, and failure-isolation needs
Use IAM Identity Center with the external identity source and permission sets, or assume-role patterns for scoped cross-account access
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out

Correct answer: D

Why: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Option review:

A: AWS Global Infrastructure choices should be driven by business latency, regulatory, service-availability, and resilience requirements rather than geography alone. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

B: Centralized federation and role assumption avoid long-lived IAM users in every account and provide consistent least-privilege access across accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

C: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

D: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Learning point: Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out. Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Question 3

While conducting a production readiness review, the migration architect at Trey Research needs to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points while keeping administration centralized across accounts. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 44 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Create a non-overlapping CIDR and subnet segmentation plan, then connect only the required networks through controlled routing
Use Route 53 Resolver inbound and outbound endpoints with forwarding rules, and share rules where appropriate
Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out
Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing

Correct answer: D

Why: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Option review:

A: Non-overlapping addressing and deliberate segmentation make routing, inspection, and future network growth predictable and auditable. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

B: Route 53 Resolver endpoints provide managed hybrid DNS resolution between VPCs and on-premises DNS systems without custom resolver fleets. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

C: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

D: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Learning point: Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing. A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping administration centralized across accounts.

Question 4

During a architecture review at Northwind Media, the principal solutions architect is designing a IoT ingestion service. The requirement is to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 4 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 KMS for controlled encryption keys and ACM for managed TLS certificates, with key policies and rotation/governance appropriate to the workload
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Use IAM Identity Center with the external identity source and permission sets, or assume-role patterns for scoped cross-account access
Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out

Correct answer: B

Why: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Option review:

A: KMS provides auditable key control for supported AWS services and ACM manages certificate issuance and renewal for supported integrations. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

B: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

C: Centralized federation and role assumption avoid long-lived IAM users in every account and provide consistent least-privilege access across accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

D: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Learning point: Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation. RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Question 5

Coho Financial is documenting its target-state architecture. Which choice most accurately addresses the need to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals? The current estate includes 11 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 Regions and Availability Zones by measuring user/network latency, service availability, data requirements, and failure-isolation needs
Create a non-overlapping CIDR and subnet segmentation plan, then connect only the required networks through controlled routing
Use Cost Explorer, Budgets, Cost and Usage Reports, and related AWS cost tools for analysis, forecasting, and alerts
Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out

Correct answer: D

Why: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Option review:

A: AWS Global Infrastructure choices should be driven by business latency, regulatory, service-availability, and resilience requirements rather than geography alone. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

B: Non-overlapping addressing and deliberate segmentation make routing, inspection, and future network growth predictable and auditable. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

C: AWS cost-management tools provide different levels of trend analysis, forecasting, detailed usage data, and proactive budget notifications. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

D: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Learning point: Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out. Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Question 6

A enterprise architect at Lamna Healthcare is reviewing a machine learning inference service. The business requires the team to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 18 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 Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing
Aggregate CloudTrail and security-service findings centrally, using services such as Security Hub, Inspector, and organization-level logging with delegated security administration
Use Compute Optimizer and service visibility tools for rightsizing, and enforce cost-allocation tags for business ownership
Use AWS Organizations with AWS Control Tower to establish an organizational-unit and account model with guardrails and centralized governance

Correct answer: A

Why: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Option review:

A: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

B: Centralized logs and findings provide traceability and cross-account visibility while keeping security duties separated from workload administration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

C: Rightsizing tools identify resource-efficiency opportunities, while tagging provides durable cost attribution for reporting and accountability. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

D: Organizations and Control Tower provide account vending, OU structure, policy guardrails, and baseline governance for scalable multi-account environments. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Learning point: Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing. A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preserving AWS-native auditability and measurable health signals.

Question 7

Fourth Coffee is changing its payment platform as part of a new workload design. Which AWS approach best enables the team to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets without relying on a one-off operator runbook? The current estate includes 25 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.

Use Compute Optimizer and service visibility tools for rightsizing, and enforce cost-allocation tags for business ownership
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Match Savings Plans or Reserved Instances to predictable committed usage and use Spot Instances only for interruption-tolerant workloads
Use organization-level logging and centralized event aggregation, with delegated administration and protected log destinations

Correct answer: B

Option review:

A: Rightsizing tools identify resource-efficiency opportunities, while tagging provides durable cost attribution for reporting and accountability. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

D: Centralized event and log collection improves detection, auditability, and resilience against tampering in individual workload accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

Question 8

An architecture board at Consolidated Messenger asks the security architect to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure without relying on a one-off operator runbook for a IoT ingestion service. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 32 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 health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out
Use organization-level logging and centralized event aggregation, with delegated administration and protected log destinations
Use VPC Flow Logs and related network troubleshooting tools, and use the appropriate VPC endpoint or PrivateLink integration for private service access
Use AWS KMS for controlled encryption keys and ACM for managed TLS certificates, with key policies and rotation/governance appropriate to the workload

Correct answer: A

Option review:

A: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

B: Centralized event and log collection improves detection, auditability, and resilience against tampering in individual workload accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

C: AWS network telemetry helps isolate routing and security failures, while VPC endpoints keep supported service traffic off the public internet. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

D: KMS provides auditable key control for supported AWS services and ACM manages certificate issuance and renewal for supported integrations. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

Question 9

For a batch settlement service at Litware Manufacturing, a global expansion project identifies one priority: protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points without relying on a one-off operator runbook. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 39 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing
Use VPC Flow Logs and related network troubleshooting tools, and use the appropriate VPC endpoint or PrivateLink integration for private service access
Use AWS Transit Gateway or another hub-and-spoke AWS network design instead of a growing full mesh of VPC peering
Use AWS KMS for controlled encryption keys and ACM for managed TLS certificates, with key policies and rotation/governance appropriate to the workload

Correct answer: A

Option review:

B: AWS network telemetry helps isolate routing and security failures, while VPC endpoints keep supported service traffic off the public internet. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

C: Transit Gateway provides transitive routing and centralized connectivity for many VPCs and hybrid attachments, reducing route-management complexity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

D: KMS provides auditable key control for supported AWS services and ACM manages certificate issuance and renewal for supported integrations. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of without relying on a one-off operator runbook.

Question 10

A principal architect asks which AWS approach is intended to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts. What is the best answer? The current estate includes 46 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 organization-level logging and centralized event aggregation, with delegated administration and protected log destinations
Use AWS KMS for controlled encryption keys and ACM for managed TLS certificates, with key policies and rotation/governance appropriate to the workload
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Use AWS Resource Access Manager and supported shared-resource patterns under Organizations

Correct answer: C

Option review:

A: Centralized event and log collection improves detection, auditability, and resilience against tampering in individual workload accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

B: KMS provides auditable key control for supported AWS services and ACM manages certificate issuance and renewal for supported integrations. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

C: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

D: AWS RAM enables governed sharing of supported resources across accounts and organizational units while retaining centralized ownership. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

Question 11

While conducting a migration wave planning session, the migration architect at Tailspin Logistics needs to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 6 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 health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out
Match Savings Plans or Reserved Instances to predictable committed usage and use Spot Instances only for interruption-tolerant workloads
Select Regions and Availability Zones by measuring user/network latency, service availability, data requirements, and failure-isolation needs
Use organization-level logging and centralized event aggregation, with delegated administration and protected log destinations

Correct answer: A

Option review:

B: AWS purchasing models trade commitment and flexibility for discounts; the workload interruption tolerance and usage predictability determine the best fit. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

C: AWS Global Infrastructure choices should be driven by business latency, regulatory, service-availability, and resilience requirements rather than geography alone. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

D: Centralized event and log collection improves detection, auditability, and resilience against tampering in individual workload accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

Question 12

During a post-incident architecture review at Alpine Sports, the principal solutions architect is designing a IoT ingestion service. The requirement is to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 13 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.

Create a non-overlapping CIDR and subnet segmentation plan, then connect only the required networks through controlled routing
Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing
Aggregate CloudTrail and security-service findings centrally, using services such as Security Hub, Inspector, and organization-level logging with delegated security administration
Use AWS Transit Gateway or another hub-and-spoke AWS network design instead of a growing full mesh of VPC peering

Correct answer: B

Option review:

B: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

C: Centralized logs and findings provide traceability and cross-account visibility while keeping security duties separated from workload administration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

D: Transit Gateway provides transitive routing and centralized connectivity for many VPCs and hybrid attachments, reducing route-management complexity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while keeping the pattern scalable as the organization adds accounts.

Question 13

Adventure Works operates a batch settlement service. In a security design review, the network architect must avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets without granting broad administrator permissions. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 20 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 redundant Direct Connect connectivity for predictable private bandwidth and retain Site-to-Site VPN as appropriate for backup or lower-volume paths
Aggregate CloudTrail and security-service findings centrally, using services such as Security Hub, Inspector, and organization-level logging with delegated security administration
Select Regions and Availability Zones by measuring user/network latency, service availability, data requirements, and failure-isolation needs
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation

Correct answer: D

Option review:

A: Direct Connect is designed for dedicated private connectivity, while VPN can provide encrypted internet-based connectivity and backup diversity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of without granting broad administrator permissions.

B: Centralized logs and findings provide traceability and cross-account visibility while keeping security duties separated from workload administration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of without granting broad administrator permissions.

C: AWS Global Infrastructure choices should be driven by business latency, regulatory, service-availability, and resilience requirements rather than geography alone. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of without granting broad administrator permissions.

Question 14

A enterprise architect at VanArsdel Energy is reviewing a machine learning inference service. The business requires the team to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure without granting broad administrator permissions. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 27 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.

Use redundant Direct Connect connectivity for predictable private bandwidth and retain Site-to-Site VPN as appropriate for backup or lower-volume paths
Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out
Use Cost Explorer, Budgets, Cost and Usage Reports, and related AWS cost tools for analysis, forecasting, and alerts
Match Savings Plans or Reserved Instances to predictable committed usage and use Spot Instances only for interruption-tolerant workloads

Correct answer: B

Option review:

A: Direct Connect is designed for dedicated private connectivity, while VPN can provide encrypted internet-based connectivity and backup diversity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of without granting broad administrator permissions.

B: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without granting broad administrator permissions.

D: AWS purchasing models trade commitment and flexibility for discounts; the workload interruption tolerance and usage predictability determine the best fit. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of without granting broad administrator permissions.

Question 15

Which solution is the strongest match for the following professional-level architecture requirement: protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points without granting broad administrator permissions? The current estate includes 34 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing
Aggregate CloudTrail and security-service findings centrally, using services such as Security Hub, Inspector, and organization-level logging with delegated security administration
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Create a non-overlapping CIDR and subnet segmentation plan, then connect only the required networks through controlled routing

Correct answer: A

Option review:

C: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of without granting broad administrator permissions.

D: Non-overlapping addressing and deliberate segmentation make routing, inspection, and future network growth predictable and auditable. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of without granting broad administrator permissions.

Question 16

An architecture board at Lucerne Publishing asks the security architect to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure for a IoT ingestion service. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 41 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 the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Use AWS Organizations with AWS Control Tower to establish an organizational-unit and account model with guardrails and centralized governance
Match Savings Plans or Reserved Instances to predictable committed usage and use Spot Instances only for interruption-tolerant workloads
Use Cost Explorer, Budgets, Cost and Usage Reports, and related AWS cost tools for analysis, forecasting, and alerts

Correct answer: A

Why: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Option review:

A: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

B: Organizations and Control Tower provide account vending, OU structure, policy guardrails, and baseline governance for scalable multi-account environments. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

C: AWS purchasing models trade commitment and flexibility for discounts; the workload interruption tolerance and usage predictability determine the best fit. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

D: AWS cost-management tools provide different levels of trend analysis, forecasting, detailed usage data, and proactive budget notifications. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Learning point: Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation. RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Question 17

For a batch settlement service at A. Datum Analytics, a hybrid connectivity redesign identifies one priority: recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 48 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 health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Create a non-overlapping CIDR and subnet segmentation plan, then connect only the required networks through controlled routing
Select Regions and Availability Zones by measuring user/network latency, service availability, data requirements, and failure-isolation needs

Correct answer: A

Why: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Option review:

B: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

C: Non-overlapping addressing and deliberate segmentation make routing, inspection, and future network growth predictable and auditable. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

D: AWS Global Infrastructure choices should be driven by business latency, regulatory, service-availability, and resilience requirements rather than geography alone. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Learning point: Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out. Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Question 18

Wide World Importers has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its machine learning inference service is to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure. Which option is best? The current estate includes 8 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.

Aggregate CloudTrail and security-service findings centrally, using services such as Security Hub, Inspector, and organization-level logging with delegated security administration
Use redundant Direct Connect connectivity for predictable private bandwidth and retain Site-to-Site VPN as appropriate for backup or lower-volume paths
Use Compute Optimizer and service visibility tools for rightsizing, and enforce cost-allocation tags for business ownership
Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing

Correct answer: D

Why: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Option review:

A: Centralized logs and findings provide traceability and cross-account visibility while keeping security duties separated from workload administration. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

B: Direct Connect is designed for dedicated private connectivity, while VPN can provide encrypted internet-based connectivity and backup diversity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

C: Rightsizing tools identify resource-efficiency opportunities, while tagging provides durable cost attribution for reporting and accountability. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

D: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Learning point: Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing. A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preferring managed AWS capabilities over bespoke infrastructure.

Question 19

While conducting a new workload design, the migration architect at Bellows University needs to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 15 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 the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Use organization-level logging and centralized event aggregation, with delegated administration and protected log destinations
Use AWS Transit Gateway or another hub-and-spoke AWS network design instead of a growing full mesh of VPC peering
Use IAM Identity Center with the external identity source and permission sets, or assume-role patterns for scoped cross-account access

Correct answer: A

Why: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Option review:

A: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

B: Centralized event and log collection improves detection, auditability, and resilience against tampering in individual workload accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

C: Transit Gateway provides transitive routing and centralized connectivity for many VPCs and hybrid attachments, reducing route-management complexity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

D: Centralized federation and role assumption avoid long-lived IAM users in every account and provide consistent least-privilege access across accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Learning point: Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation. RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. In this variant, the decision also has to work while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Question 20

Which AWS architecture principle or service combination best addresses this requirement for Blue Yonder Airlines: recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units? The current estate includes 22 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 health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out
Use redundant Direct Connect connectivity for predictable private bandwidth and retain Site-to-Site VPN as appropriate for backup or lower-volume paths
Use organization-level logging and centralized event aggregation, with delegated administration and protected log destinations
Use IAM Identity Center with the external identity source and permission sets, or assume-role patterns for scoped cross-account access

Correct answer: A

Why: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Option review:

B: Direct Connect is designed for dedicated private connectivity, while VPN can provide encrypted internet-based connectivity and backup diversity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

C: Centralized event and log collection improves detection, auditability, and resilience against tampering in individual workload accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

D: Centralized federation and role assumption avoid long-lived IAM users in every account and provide consistent least-privilege access across accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Learning point: Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out. Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. In this variant, the decision also has to work while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Question 21

City Power operates a batch settlement service. In a global expansion project, the network architect must protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 29 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use VPC Flow Logs and related network troubleshooting tools, and use the appropriate VPC endpoint or PrivateLink integration for private service access
Match Savings Plans or Reserved Instances to predictable committed usage and use Spot Instances only for interruption-tolerant workloads
Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing
Use Cost Explorer, Budgets, Cost and Usage Reports, and related AWS cost tools for analysis, forecasting, and alerts

Correct answer: C

Why: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Option review:

A: AWS network telemetry helps isolate routing and security failures, while VPC endpoints keep supported service traffic off the public internet. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

B: AWS purchasing models trade commitment and flexibility for discounts; the workload interruption tolerance and usage predictability determine the best fit. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

C: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

D: AWS cost-management tools provide different levels of trend analysis, forecasting, detailed usage data, and proactive budget notifications. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Learning point: Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing. A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. In this variant, the decision also has to work while enabling the pattern to be reused consistently across organizational units.

Question 22

A enterprise architect at Proseware Labs is reviewing a machine learning inference service. The business requires the team to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets without introducing an unrelated application rewrite. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 36 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.

Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation
Use AWS Transit Gateway or another hub-and-spoke AWS network design instead of a growing full mesh of VPC peering
Use AWS Resource Access Manager and supported shared-resource patterns under Organizations
Select Regions and Availability Zones by measuring user/network latency, service availability, data requirements, and failure-isolation needs

Correct answer: A

Why: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Option review:

A: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

B: Transit Gateway provides transitive routing and centralized connectivity for many VPCs and hybrid attachments, reducing route-management complexity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

C: AWS RAM enables governed sharing of supported resources across accounts and organizational units while retaining centralized ownership. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

D: AWS Global Infrastructure choices should be driven by business latency, regulatory, service-availability, and resilience requirements rather than geography alone. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Learning point: Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation. RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. In this variant, the decision also has to work without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Question 23

Southridge Video is changing its payment platform as part of a migration wave planning session. Which AWS approach best enables the team to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure without introducing an unrelated application rewrite? The current estate includes 43 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 Transit Gateway or another hub-and-spoke AWS network design instead of a growing full mesh of VPC peering
Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out
Match Savings Plans or Reserved Instances to predictable committed usage and use Spot Instances only for interruption-tolerant workloads
Use IAM Identity Center with the external identity source and permission sets, or assume-role patterns for scoped cross-account access

Correct answer: B

Why: Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Option review:

A: Transit Gateway provides transitive routing and centralized connectivity for many VPCs and hybrid attachments, reducing route-management complexity. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

C: AWS purchasing models trade commitment and flexibility for discounts; the workload interruption tolerance and usage predictability determine the best fit. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

D: Centralized federation and role assumption avoid long-lived IAM users in every account and provide consistent least-privilege access across accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to recover application capacity automatically after an instance or Availability Zone failure under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Learning point: Use health checks, load balancing, Auto Scaling or managed multi-AZ capabilities so failed capacity is replaced automatically and the architecture can scale out. Elastic self-healing architectures reduce manual recovery steps and avoid dependence on a single vertically scaled component. In this variant, the decision also has to work without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Question 24

An architecture board at Woodgrove Bank asks the security architect to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points without introducing an unrelated application rewrite for a IoT ingestion service. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 3 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 Organizations with AWS Control Tower to establish an organizational-unit and account model with guardrails and centralized governance
Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing
Use IAM Identity Center with the external identity source and permission sets, or assume-role patterns for scoped cross-account access
Use Route 53 Resolver inbound and outbound endpoints with forwarding rules, and share rules where appropriate

Correct answer: B

Why: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Option review:

A: Organizations and Control Tower provide account vending, OU structure, policy guardrails, and baseline governance for scalable multi-account environments. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

B: A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

C: Centralized federation and role assumption avoid long-lived IAM users in every account and provide consistent least-privilege access across accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

D: Route 53 Resolver endpoints provide managed hybrid DNS resolution between VPCs and on-premises DNS systems without custom resolver fleets. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to protect data from accidental deletion and ransomware while retaining auditable recovery points under the additional constraint of without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Learning point: Use AWS Backup or service-native backup features with policy-based retention, protected copies, and regular restore testing. A backup is useful only when retention, isolation, encryption, and restore procedures are designed and tested against recovery requirements. In this variant, the decision also has to work without introducing an unrelated application rewrite.

Question 25

Following an acquisition, Relecloud Systems is rationalizing its batch settlement service. The architecture board documented two acceptance criteria: avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets; and the solution must do so while minimizing manual intervention during steady-state operations. Which target-state recommendation should the cloud platform architect approve? The current estate includes 10 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 IAM Identity Center with the external identity source and permission sets, or assume-role patterns for scoped cross-account access
Match Savings Plans or Reserved Instances to predictable committed usage and use Spot Instances only for interruption-tolerant workloads
Select Regions and Availability Zones by measuring user/network latency, service availability, data requirements, and failure-isolation needs
Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation

Correct answer: D

Why: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while minimizing manual intervention during steady-state operations.

Option review:

A: Centralized federation and role assumption avoid long-lived IAM users in every account and provide consistent least-privilege access across accounts. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while minimizing manual intervention during steady-state operations.

B: AWS purchasing models trade commitment and flexibility for discounts; the workload interruption tolerance and usage predictability determine the best fit. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while minimizing manual intervention during steady-state operations.

C: AWS Global Infrastructure choices should be driven by business latency, regulatory, service-availability, and resilience requirements rather than geography alone. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to avoid paying for active-active capacity when a less expensive DR pattern still meets the recovery targets under the additional constraint of while minimizing manual intervention during steady-state operations.

D: RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while minimizing manual intervention during steady-state operations.

Learning point: Choose the least-complex DR pattern that demonstrably meets the required RTO and RPO, validating replication frequency and recovery automation. RTO and RPO should drive the DR pattern; higher readiness generally reduces recovery time but increases steady-state cost and operational complexity. In this variant, the decision also has to work while minimizing manual intervention during steady-state operations.

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

Question 25

Related posts: