Why not just go with latency-based routing (option C) here? The question isn't asking about country-based compliance or location restrictions, just wants the lowest latency for users. Latency routing gets users to their fastest API endpoint automatically, which is exactly what they're after.
Q: 7
A company runs its sales reporting application in an AWS Region in the United States. The application
uses an Amazon API Gateway Regional API and AWS Lambda functions to generate on-demand
reports from data in an Amazon RDS for MySQL database. The frontend of the application is hosted
on Amazon S3 and is accessed by users through an Amazon CloudFront distribution. The company is
using Amazon Route 53 as the DNS service for the domain. Route 53 is configured with a simple
routing policy to route traffic to the API Gateway API.
In the next 6 months, the company plans to expand operations to Europe. More than 90% of the
database traffic is read-only traffic. The company has already deployed an API Gateway API and
Lambda functions in the new Region.
A solutions architect must design a solution that minimizes latency for users who download reports.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
D makes sense to me since geolocation routing lets you send European users straight to the new region’s API Gateway, which feels like it would minimize latency for those users. Not 100% sure since latency-based might still be better overall. Agree?
A is wrong, C makes more sense. Cross-Region read replica in the EU plus Route 53 latency-based routing gets users to the closest API Gateway automatically, which is key for minimizing report download time. I think that covers both performance and AWS best practices.
C imo. Cross-region read replica plus latency-based routing keeps reports snappy for both US and EU users. Latency routing picks the fastest region automatically, which is what you want here. Geolocation isn’t as dynamic. Anyone disagree?
D Geolocation routing feels like it would minimize latency for EU users, but maybe that's a trap option.
Minimizing latency only works if regions are actually close in network terms, so C (not D) makes sense.
C makes sense here since latency-based routing actually sends users to whichever region is fastest for them, not just based on their country. With the cross-Region read replica, that covers the read-heavy workload too. Pretty sure this hits the requirement unless there's some region compliance thing I'm missing. Agree?
Not D, it's C. Latency-based routing fits the requirement to minimize download time for users in both regions, and cross-region read replica matches the heavy read workload. Geolocation is more about sending traffic by country, not fastest path. If anyone got another take, let me know.
C all the way. Cross-region read replica slashes latency and latency-based routing automatically sends users to the closest endpoint, which is exactly what you want for speed. Geolocation routing isn’t as flexible in this scenario, pretty sure.
D is not right, C is the way to go.
Be respectful. No spam.
Question 7 of 35