Q: 4
A large financial services company uses Amazon ElastiCache (Redis OSS) for its new application that
has a global user base. A solutions architect must develop a caching solution that will be available
across AWS Regions and include low-latency replication and failover capabilities for disaster recovery
(DR). The company's security team requires the encryption of cross-Region data transfers.
Which solution meets these requirements with the LEAST amount of operational effort?
Options
Discussion
Wouldn’t B be incorrect if they needed bidirectional writes? Global datastore is single-writer, so if there’s a use case for multi-master that could change the best answer here.
B , seen this in practice tests and AWS official docs cover global data store as the easiest managed way.
B seems right, is it. Had something like this in a mock before-global data store for ElastiCache Redis does auto encrypted cross-Region sync and has the failover built in with almost no management overhead. Other options are way more hands-on. Anyone disagree?
B works best here. Global datastore takes care of cross-region replication and encrypts everything in transit, so you don't have to script DMS or snapshot copy jobs. Pretty sure that's what they want for least effort. Agree?
Global datastore really fits for this, so B is the one. You get cross-region replication with encryption handled by AWS, and failover is mostly just a promotion step. Compared to D, you don't have to mess with snapshots or worry about security gaps. Pretty sure this matches what's asked but open to other takes.
It’s D, not B. Snapshots make DR easy and seem like less effort, though I could be missing a catch with encryption.
B is the right pick here since ElastiCache global datastore gives you managed cross-Region replication with encryption baked in. No need for extra DMS setup or manual failover steps, which keeps operational effort low. I think that's what the question aims for, but happy to discuss if someone sees a gap.
B/C? Leaning B because global datastore seems more automated, but not 100% sure if there's a hidden catch.
Tricky part here is the encryption for cross-Region transfers, which rules out D since snapshot copies aren't encrypted in-transit by default. So B is the only one that actually meets all requirements without manual setup or extra tooling. If encryption wasn't called out, maybe D could work, but not for this specific scenario I think. Disagree?
B Just one step, global datastore covers cross-Region replication and encryption automatically. No need to set up DMS or handle snapshots. Pretty sure that's exactly what AWS wants you to use for this scenario.
Be respectful. No spam.
