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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

This question is mainly about cost optimization for two different workload patterns:

A constant-rate ingestion workload

A noncritical nightly batch analytics workload that can tolerate interruption or rerun

The most cost-effective architecture is to decouple storage from the ingestion servers, store the incoming data in Amazon S3, and run the nightly calculations by using AWS Batch on Spot Instances.

Why B is correct

Amazon Data Firehose can continuously ingest streaming data and deliver the data to Amazon S3. Because the data rate is constant, the company does not need to keep a fleet of EC2 instances running just to collect and retain data on attached EBS volumes. Using S3 as durable storage is operationally simpler and generally more cost-effective than maintaining long-running EC2 ingestion servers with EBS-based storage for this type of streaming landing zone.

For the nightly processing, the job is:

batch oriented,

takes only 4 hours,

not critical to the business,

acceptable to rerun later if interrupted.

These characteristics make Spot Instances an ideal fit. AWS Batch is specifically designed to run batch computing workloads and can efficiently provision and manage compute resources, including Spot Instances. Since the job can tolerate interruption, Spot capacity provides the lowest-cost compute option.

This option reduces cost in both major areas:

storage and ingestion are moved to managed services and object storage,

nightly compute moves from On-Demand Instances to Spot-based batch processing.

Why A is incorrect

A improves the design by moving ingestion to Data Firehose and storage to S3, which is a good step. However, it still uses EC2 On-Demand Instances for nightly processing. Because the nightly workload is not business-critical and can tolerate failure, Spot Instances are a better fit and more cost-effective than On-Demand Instances. Therefore, A is not the most cost-effective choice.

Why C is incorrect

This option keeps ingestion on a fleet of EC2 Reserved Instances with 3-year reservations behind a Network Load Balancer. That is not the most economical or simplest design for constant ingestion when a managed ingestion service such as Data Firehose can deliver directly to S3.

Also, a Network Load Balancer does not add meaningful value for the ingestion requirement described here. The issue is not distributing interactive network traffic to an application fleet. The better architecture is to use a managed data ingestion service instead of recommitting to long-term EC2 reservations.

While AWS Batch with Spot Instances is good for the nightly analytics portion, the ingestion side of this option is still more expensive and less efficient than B.

Why D is incorrect

Amazon Redshift is a data warehouse and is useful for analytical querying, but this option is not the most cost-effective for the stated use case. The company needs to ingest constant-rate streaming market data and run a nightly aggregate job. Storing all incoming data in Redshift is generally a more specialized and potentially more expensive architecture than landing the raw stream in S3 and running elastic batch processing on demand.

The Lambda part is also problematic. The batch processing currently takes 4 hours. AWS Lambda is not designed for long-running heavy batch jobs of this kind. Even if the aggregate query could be expressed in SQL, the answer is still not the most cost-effective and does not align as well with the workload pattern as S3 plus AWS Batch on Spot Instances.

Key design principles being tested

This question tests whether you can identify:

S3 as low-cost, durable storage for incoming streamed data

Managed ingestion services instead of self-managed EC2 ingestion servers

Spot Instances for interruptible, fault-tolerant batch jobs

AWS Batch as the managed orchestration service for batch workloads

Final justification

The most cost-effective redesign is to:

ingest the streaming data with Amazon Data Firehose,

store the data in Amazon S3,

run nightly analytics through AWS Batch on Spot Instances.

That makes B the best answer.

The core issue is high latency when serving images during traffic spikes. The current design resizes images dynamically and caches them locally inside ECS containers. With AWS Fargate, containers are ephemeral and scale in and out based on load. Local container caches are not shared across tasks, so cache hit rates drop during scaling events, forcing repeated image resizing. This increases CPU usage, startup latency, and response times under load.

The lowest operational overhead and most effective solution is to offload image delivery entirely from the application layer and use edge caching. Amazon CloudFront is designed to cache static content at edge locations close to end users, dramatically reducing latency and backend load. Amazon S3 is a durable, highly scalable object store that is well suited for serving static assets such as images.

Option A moves image delivery to a CloudFront + S3 architecture. By pre-scaling images and storing them in S3, the application no longer performs on-demand image resizing during requests. CloudFront caches the images at edge locations, so subsequent requests are served directly from the edge with minimal latency. The ALB remains the origin for dynamic content, while image requests are routed to the S3 origin using cache behaviors. This approach is fully managed, highly scalable, and requires minimal changes to the application logic once images are pre-generated.

Option B introduces ElastiCache, which adds operational overhead and complexity. The application must manage cache keys, eviction, and failure scenarios. ElastiCache is better suited for low-latency data access patterns rather than large static objects like images, and it does not provide global edge caching.

Option C adds unnecessary complexity by introducing an Aurora database as part of the caching layer. Databases are not designed to manage cache metadata for static assets at scale, and this design increases operational overhead without improving latency compared to CloudFront.

Option D is not appropriate because API Gateway caching is intended for API responses, not for efficient delivery of large static binary objects such as images. Replacing the ALB with API Gateway also introduces request size, payload, and cost considerations and does not provide global edge caching comparable to CloudFront for image delivery.

Therefore, using Amazon CloudFront with Amazon S3 for pre-scaled images provides the lowest latency, highest scalability, and least operational overhead.

Option D is the most appropriate solution as it addresses all the specified requirements:

Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL supports native spatial data types through the PostGIS extension, making it suitable for handling spatial data migrated from Oracle databases.

AWS Schema Conversion Tool (SCT) and AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) can be used to migrate data from on-premises Oracle databases to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL, facilitating the transition while preserving data integrity.

Cron jobs can be scheduled directly on the PostgreSQL DB instance to handle maintenance tasks, aligning with the company ' s existing maintenance practices.

AWS Direct Connect provides a dedicated network connection between the on-premises environment and AWS, enabling secure and efficient querying of on-premises databases as foreign tables from the RDS instance.

This solution ensures compatibility with spatial data, maintains existing maintenance workflows, and provides a secure and efficient connection to on-premises systems.