C tbh, since the cross-Region read replica lets you promote quickly and have the compute layer hot in the other region. A and B seem slower because you have to spin up the DB from snapshots when disaster happens, which takes more time. D is a bit of a trap, RDS snapshots can't just convert to DynamoDB global tables. I think C is right but open if anyone sees a catch with this setup.
Q: 9
A company needs to implement a disaster recovery (DR) plan for a web application. The application
runs in a single AWS Region.
The application uses microservices that run in containers. The containers are hosted on AWS Fargate
in Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS). The application has an Amazon RDS for MYSQL DB
instance as its data layer and uses Amazon Route 53 for DNS resolution. An Amazon CloudWatch
alarm invokes an
Amazon EventBridge rule if the application experiences a failure.
A solutions architect must design a DR solution to provide application recovery to a separate Region.
The solution must minimize the time that is necessary to recover
from a failure.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Options
Discussion
Option C looks right. Had something like this in a mock and the cross-Region read replica with ability to promote cuts failover time way down. A and B need to build the DB from snapshot every time, which takes longer. Anyone disagree?
C is better here since the cross-Region read replica handles failover fast. Warm standby always reduces recovery time. Makes sense?
Really clear scenario setup here. C
Be respectful. No spam.
Question 9 of 35