Q: 1
A gaming company is building an application that uses a database to store user data. The company
wants the database to have an active-active configuration that allows data writes to a secondary
AWS Region. The database must achieve a sub-second recovery point objective (RPO).
Options:
Options
Discussion
D . Aurora (C) is tempting but it's not multi-active for writes, that's the trap here. Similar questions on practice tests.
I don’t think it’s D. C.
D or maybe C if they asked for SQL, but D fits best. DynamoDB global tables are built for active-active across regions with sub-second RPO, exactly what the scenario described. Aurora's global feature is more active-passive. I think D is right here but open to arguments if someone has a different take.
Likely D, that's the only one with DynamoDB global tables for true active-active and sub-second RPO. Fits what they're asking for.
D tbh, since DynamoDB global tables let you do true active-active writes in both regions with minimal latency. Aurora global db is more for read-only in the secondary region, not writes. Pretty sure that's what the question wants, but shout if I'm off here.
Can someone double check if Aurora Global Database (option C) really supports active-active writes across regions? I thought only DynamoDB Global Tables (D) let you do true multi-region active-active writes, which matters for this gaming scenario. Maybe I'm missing something in how Aurora handles replication?
D vs C here, but pretty sure it's D since global tables support true active-active writes. Aurora (C) only does active-passive, easy trap. Anyone see it differently?
I don’t think C fits here, D is the right one. You’ll see this covered in the AWS docs and official practice tests, global tables are built for active-active across regions.
D
D imo, had something like this in a mock-global tables do active-active with sub-second RPO.
Be respectful. No spam.
