Amazon Web Services SAA-C03 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

To analyze the performance of the web application with granularity of no more than 2 minutes, enablingdetailed monitoringon EC2 instances is the best solution. By default, CloudWatch provides metrics at a 5-minute interval. Enabling detailed monitoring allows you to collect metrics at 1-minute intervals, which will give you the level of granularity you need to analyze performance during peak traffic.

Amazon CloudWatch metrics can then be used to analyze CPU utilization, memory usage, disk I/O, and network throughput, among other performance-related metrics, at the desired granularity.

Option A: Sending CloudWatch logs to Redshift for analysis is unnecessary and overcomplicated for simple performance analysis, which can be done using CloudWatch metrics alone.

Option C: Fetching EC2 logs via Lambda adds complexity, and CloudWatch metrics already provide the required data for performance analysis.

Option D: Sending logs to S3 and using Redshift for analysis is also more complex than necessary for simple performance monitoring.

AWS References:

Monitoring Amazon EC2 with CloudWatch

Amazon CloudWatch Detailed Monitoring

Amazon Aurora Serverless v2 provides cost-effective, on-demand, and auto-scaling database capacity. You pay only for actual usage, making it ideal for development and test environments that are not used continuously. It supports PostgreSQL and is suitable for variable and short-duration workloads, minimizing costs when databases are idle.

AWS Documentation Extract:

“Amazon Aurora Serverless v2 automatically adjusts database capacity based on application needs, ideal for development and test environments with intermittent usage.”

(Source: Aurora Serverless v2 documentation)

B: RDS instances run and accrue charges even when idle.

C, D: Aurora clusters/global databases are overkill and incur higher costs for dev/test.

Comprehensive and Detailed 250 to 300 words of Explanation (AWS documentation-based, no links):

To achieve resilience across multiple Availability Zones, the architecture should use services that natively provide Multi-AZ durability and failover with minimal manual intervention. For static website content, Amazon S3 is the natural choice because it stores objects durably and is designed for high availability; it also integrates well with common web delivery patterns. For the database, the requirement is explicitly Microsoft SQL Server and resilience across AZs.

An Amazon RDS for SQL Server Multi-AZ deployment (Option B) is designed to provide high availability by maintaining a standby replica in a different Availability Zone and performing automated failover in certain failure scenarios. This meets the Multi-AZ resiliency requirement while reducing operational overhead compared to self-managed database clustering on EC2.

Option A uses RDS Custom for SQL Server, which is intended for scenarios where you need OS-level and database-level access/customization. That typically increases operational responsibility and is not the simplest “resilient Multi-AZ” answer unless the scenario demands deep customization (it does not here). Options C and D propose using EBS Multi-Attach for static content, which is not a good fit for static website assets and adds complexity; Multi-Attach is limited and does not replace object storage semantics. Option D also adds substantial operational overhead by running and managing SQL Server across EC2 instances in multiple AZs, including patching, backups, and HA configuration.

Therefore, B best meets all requirements: S3 for static object content and RDS for SQL Server Multi-AZ for resilient, managed database high availability across Availability Zones.