Q: 1
A developer is creating an AWS CloudFormation template to deploy Amazon EC2 instances across
multiple AWS accounts. The developer must choose the EC2 instances from a list of approved
instance types.
How can the developer incorporate the list of approved instance types in the CloudFormation
template?
Options
Discussion
Probably B, just create a resource for each EC2 type in the list right?
D imo, that's the normal way to restrict choices in CloudFormation params.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 2
A company is building a new application that runs on AWS and uses Amazon API Gateway to expose
APIs Teams of developers are working on separate components of the application in parallel The
company wants to publish an API without an integrated backend so that teams that depend on the
application backend can continue the development work before the API backend development is
complete.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
Option A is the way to go. Setting the API Gateway integration type to MOCK lets the API return test responses without any backend, so frontend teams can keep developing. Pretty sure this is exactly what AWS recommends for this use-case. Anyone see a better method?
Its A, MOCK integration is built for this. D is a trap since HTTP_PROXY needs an actual backend.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 3
A company stores its data in data tables in a series of Amazon S3 buckets. The company received an
alert that customer credit card information might have been exposed in a data table on one of the
company's public applications. A developer needs to identify all potential exposures within the
application environment.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
Makes sense to pick B here. Macie is built for scanning S3 buckets for sensitive data like credit card info, and "Financial" is the right finding type for that. Saw a similar question in some practice tests.
B fits since Macie actually scans for sensitive data in S3, and the 'Financial' finding type covers credit cards. Athena just queries data, doesn't detect exposure by itself. Pretty sure B is correct but open if anyone thinks otherwise.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 4
A company hosts a stateless web application with low data storage in a single AWS Region. The
company wants to increase the resiliency of the application to include a multi-Region presence. The
company wants to set the recovery time objective (RTO) and recovery point objective (RPO) to hours.
The company needs a low-cost and low-complexity disaster recovery (DR) strategy.
Which DR strategy should the company use?
Options
Discussion
Its B. Pilot light fits here since it keeps a minimal environment ready, so it's cheaper and still meets the RTO/RPO targets. Warm standby (A) is pricier and D is overkill for this scenario.
B
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 5
A developer is receiving an intermittent ProvisionedThroughputExceededException error from an
application that is based on Amazon DynamoDB. According to the Amazon CloudWatch metrics for
the table, the application is not exceeding the provisioned throughput. What could be the cause of
the issue?
Options
Discussion
D , but I think it's a trap-sort key doesn't impact partition throughput like hash key does. B is probably correct here based on exam reports, open to corrections.
B tbh, seen similar questions in practice exams and the AWS docs are clear about hot partitions on hash keys.
C
It’s B since the app can overload a single hash key, creating a hot partition even when total throughput looks fine. Pretty sure this fits what’s seen in exam reports too. Correct me if I’m missing anything.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 6
A developer needs to give a new application the ability to retrieve configuration data.
The application must be able to retrieve new configuration data values without the need to redeploy
the application code. If the application becomes unhealthy because of a bad configuration change,
the developer must be able to automatically revert the configuration change to the previous value.
Options
Discussion
I don’t think C is right here. D is better since AppConfig with Application Signals supports actual automatic rollback if the app gets unhealthy, while C would need extra logic for that. A and B feel like traps-Secrets Manager just isn’t meant for config like this.
D , AppConfig with Application Signals is the right combo for runtime config changes and auto rollback if issues show up. Official exam guide and AWS whitepapers mention this use case a lot.
Probably D. AppConfig with Application Signals is built for this, so you get easy config updates plus automated rollback if something breaks. Secrets Manager doesn't really fit here since it's for secrets, not general config. Let me know if I'm missing something.
Its D. AWS AppConfig with CloudWatch Application Signals gives you automated rollbacks if a config breaks the app. Secrets Manager is just for secrets, not dynamic config updates. Pretty sure this is what they're looking for.
D
Is "most automated rollback" the key here, or would manual intervention also be OK? That might change things.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 7
A developer is creating an AWS Lambda function that will connect to an Amazon RDS for MySQL
instance. The developer wants to store the database credentials. The database credentials need to be
encrypted and the database password needs to be automatically rotated.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
Maybe C here.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 8
A developer at a company recently created a serverless application to process and show data from
business reports. The application's user interface (UI) allows users to select and start processing the
files. The Ul displays a message when the result is available to view. The application uses AWS Step
Functions with AWS Lambda functions to process the files. The developer used Amazon API Gateway
and Lambda functions to create an API to support the UI.
The company's Ul team reports that the request to process a file is often returning timeout errors
because of the see or complexity of the files. The Ul team wants the API to provide an immediate
response so that the Ul can deploy a message while the files are being processed. The backend
process that is invoked by the API needs to send an email message when the report processing is
complete.
What should the developer do to configure the API to meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
Probably A, seen similar on practice tests. Official AWS docs and whitepapers on Lambda async invocation would help for stuff like this.
Not convinced by C, that's a common trap with API Gateway timeouts. A
A tbh, not C. The X-Amz-Invocation-Type header set to Event makes it async so the API doesn't wait for execution, that's what solves the UI timeout. C is a distraction here.
Had something like this in a mock, pretty sure A is right. If you add the X-Amz-Invocation-Type: Event header, API Gateway will call the Lambda asynchronously, so the UI gets an immediate response and doesn't time out waiting for processing. That matches what the UI team wants. Changing timeout values (like C) wouldn't help with long-running jobs. Agree?
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 9
A developer is working on an app for a company that uses an Amazon DynamoDB table named
Orders to store customer orders. The table uses OrderlD as the partition key and there is no sort key.
The table contains more than 100,000 records. The developer needs to add a functionality that will
retrieve all Orders records that contain an OrderSource attribute with the MobileApp value.
Which solution will improve the user experience in the MOST efficient way?
Options
Discussion
D . Adding a GSI with OrderSource as the partition key lets you query just for MobileApp, much faster than Scan. Makes sense for a big table like this. Disagree?
Probably D for this. Scan (A) just isn't efficient with big tables, and LSIs (B) require the same partition key so that's out. GSIs really help when you need to query by non-key attributes. Correct me if I've missed something.
Honestly I'd go for A. Scan with a filter seems more straightforward if you don't expect crazy query volumes.
Be respectful. No spam.
Q: 10
A developer has designed an application to store incoming data as JSON files in Amazon S3 objects.
Custom business logic in an AWS Lambda function then transforms the objects, and the Lambda
function loads the data into an Amazon DynamoDB table. Recently, the workload has experienced
sudden and significant changes in traffic. The flow of data to the DynamoDB table is becoming
throttled.
The developer needs to implement a solution to eliminate the throttling and load the data into the
DynamoDB table more consistently.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
A for sure. SQS acts as a buffer so sudden spikes get smoothed before Lambda tries writing to DynamoDB. Seen similar in other AWS exam practice sets, so pretty confident here. Let me know if you read it differently.
B or C here. Both seem like decent ways to handle the scaling.
Its A for this one. Using SQS between transform and load steps helps buffer spikes so DynamoDB doesn't get overwhelmed all at once. Not 100% sure since I haven't seen this exact scenario before, but it matches similar practice ones. Anyone agree?
Be respectful. No spam.
Question 1 of 20 · Page 1 / 2