Amazon Web Services DVA-C02 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

In AWS Lambda, CPU power scales proportionally with the memory configuration. Lambda does not let you directly set “CPU cores” as a standalone setting in the general case; instead, increasing the function’s configured memory increases the CPU allocation (and other resources such as network throughput) available to the function. Therefore, to reduce latency caused by insufficient CPU, the developer should increase the function’s memory setting.

Option B directly addresses the CPU limitation in the supported Lambda configuration model. This is a common performance tuning approach: raise memory, benchmark, and find the optimal cost/performance point.

Option A is not the right lever for most Lambda functions because Lambda compute is configured via memory (and architecture), not by directly raising a “vCPU quota” per function in a typical tuning workflow.

Option C increases /tmp storage capacity and helps when dealing with large temporary files, not CPU availability.

Option D increases the maximum runtime allowed per invocation, but it does not give the function more CPU and will not reduce latency caused by CPU starvation.

Therefore, increasing the allocated memory is the correct way to increase CPU for a Lambda function.

This solution will solve the deployment issue by deploying the new version of the application to one new EC2 instance at a time, while keeping the old version running on the existing instances. This way, there will always be at least four instances serving traffic during the deployment, and no downtime or performance degradation will occur. Option A is not optimal because it will increase the cost of running the Elastic Beanstalk environment without solving the deployment issue. Option B is not optimal because it will split the traffic between two versions of the application, which may cause inconsistency and confusion for the customers. Option D is not optimal because it will deploy the new version of the application to two existing instances at a time, which may reduce the capacity below four instances during the deployment.

The bottleneck in this architecture is typically the relational database (RDS MySQL), which has limited concurrent connections and write throughput compared with bursty API traffic. Because transaction volume spikes during the day and drops to near zero at night, the system needs a way to absorb bursts without over-provisioning the database (which would be costly and underutilized at night).

A cost-effective way to add elasticity is to introduce Amazon SQS as a buffer between API ingestion and database writes. With SQS, devices (or the API/Lambda) enqueue transactions quickly, and Lambda consumers process the queue at a controlled rate. The key is to prevent Lambda from overwhelming RDS with too many concurrent writes or connections. Setting reserved concurrency on the Lambda function limits the maximum number of concurrent executions, which effectively caps database connection pressure and smooths write load. This prevents overload events that cause errors/timeouts while still allowing the system to scale up to the reserved concurrency limit during peaks.

Option D captures this correct control mechanism: SQS for buffering + Lambda reserved concurrency matched to the DB’s connection capacity.

Option C is incorrect because “enhanced fanout” is a Kinesis Data Streams feature, not an SQS feature.

Options A and B focus on scaling Aurora read replicas, which helps read scaling, not write-heavy transaction ingestion. POS transaction processing is typically write-intensive; scaling read replicas does not solve the core elasticity problem. Also, migrating databases is higher effort and cost than adding a queue and tuning Lambda concurrency.

Therefore, adding SQS and setting Lambda reserved concurrency to protect RDS connections is the most cost-effective elasticity improvement.