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

Option C is correct because using Auto Scaling groups for the backend services allows the company to scale up or down the number of EC2 instances based on the demand and traffic. This way, the backend services can handle more requests during peak seasons without compromising performance or availability. Using DynamoDB auto scaling allows the company to adjust the provisioned read and write capacity of the table or index automatically based on the actual traffic patterns. This way, the table or index can handle sudden increases or decreases in workload without throttling or overprovisioning1.

Option A is incorrect because migrating the backend services to AWS Lambda may require significant development effort to rewrite the code and test the functionality. Moreover, increasing the read and write capacity of DynamoDB manually may not be efficient or cost-effective, as it does not account for the variability of the workload. The company may end up paying for unused capacity or experiencing throttling if the workload exceeds the provisioned capacity1.

Option B is incorrect because migrating the backend services to AWS Lambda may require significant development effort to rewrite the code and test the functionality. Moreover, configuring DynamoDB to use global tables may not be necessary or beneficial for the company, as global tables are mainly used for replicating data across multiple AWS Regions for fast local access and disaster recovery. Global tables do not automatically scale the provisioned capacity of each replica table; they still require manual or auto scaling settings2.

Option D is incorrect because using Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) and an AWS Lambda function to write to DynamoDB may introduce additional complexity and latency to the application architecture. Amazon SQS is a message queue service that decouples and coordinates the components of a distributed system. AWS Lambda is a serverless compute service that runs code in response to events. Using these services may require significant development effort to integrate them with the backend services and DynamoDB. Moreover, they may not improve the read performance of DynamoDB, which may also be affected by high traffic3.

Auto Scaling groups

DynamoDB auto scaling

AWS Lambda

DynamoDB global tables

AWS Lambda vs EC2: Comparison of AWS Compute Resources - Simform

Managing throughput capacity automatically with DynamoDB auto scaling - Amazon DynamoDB

AWS Aurora Global Database vs. DynamoDB Global Tables

Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

C is correct because it converts the single–Availability Zone, single-EC2-instance ECS design into a managed, multi-AZ, self-healing architecture with minimal day-to-day operations. The current design has multiple single points of failure: one EC2 instance for ECS capacity and one Availability Zone for all components. Moving the ECS service to AWS Fargate removes the need to manage EC2 instances (capacity provisioning, patching, and scaling of the container instances) and allows the service to run tasks across multiple Availability Zones for higher availability. On the database side, modifying Aurora PostgreSQL to a Multi-AZ DB cluster (by adding a replica in another AZ) increases availability and supports faster recovery from an AZ failure with AWS-managed failover.

Why the other options are less suitable:

A: Making Aurora Multi-AZ improves database availability, but it does not address the compute layer’s biggest issue: ECS is on a single EC2 instance in one AZ with no auto scaling. RDS Proxy can help with connection management, but it does not fix the application’s single-AZ ECS single-instance availability risk.

B: Cross-Region read replicas and manual failover scripts increase operational burden. Also, it keeps ECS on EC2 (still requires instance management) and introduces a manual failover process, which is the opposite of “least operational overhead.”

D: Multi-Region active-active plus Aurora global database can deliver very high availability, but it adds significant complexity (multi-Region deployment, routing strategy, global database considerations, operational procedures). That is higher operational overhead than a straightforward multi-AZ design using managed services.