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
Yeah, option D all the way since DynamoDB global tables actually allow writes in both regions with super low replication lag. Aurora (C) only supports active-passive, so can't do true multi-region writes. Sub-second RPO is key here. Pretty confident, but happy to hear if someone sees a catch.
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
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.
If you're unsure, check the AWS documentation or use the official practice exams. D.
Gotta be D, global tables let DynamoDB write in both regions and hit that sub-second RPO. Makes sense for this use case.
I don't think it's C. D is correct because DynamoDB global tables actually do active-active writes with sub-second RPO. C is a trap since Aurora global only lets the secondary region do reads, not writes. If the requirement was for SQL, then maybe C, but that's not asked here. Let me know if you see it differently.
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.
Be respectful. No spam.
