DOP-C02 Amazon Web Services Exam Lab Questions

The best solution to implement failover for the application is to use CloudFront origin groups. Origin groups allow CloudFront to automatically switch to a secondary origin when the primary origin is unavailable or returns specific HTTP status codes that indicate a failure1. This way, CloudFront can serve the requests from the secondary ALB in the secondary Region without any delay or redirection. To set up origin groups, the DevOps engineer needs to create a new origin on the distribution for the secondary ALB, create a new origin group with the original ALB as the primary origin and the secondary ALB as the secondary origin, and configure the origin group to fail over for HTTP 5xx status codes. Then, the DevOps engineer needs to update the default behavior to use the origin group instead of the single origin2.

The other options are not as effective or efficient as the solution in option B. Option A is not suitable because creating a second CloudFront distribution will increase the complexity and cost of the application. Moreover, using Route 53 alias records with a failover policy will introduce some delay in detecting and switching to the secondary CloudFront distribution, which may not meet the zero-second RTO requirement. Option C is not feasible because CloudFront does not support using Route 53 alias records as origins3. Option D is not advisable because using a CloudFront function to redirect the requests to the secondary ALB will add an extra round-trip and latency to the failover process, which may also not meet the zero-second RTO requirement.

1: Optimizing high availability with CloudFront origin failover - Amazon CloudFront

2: Creating an origin group - Amazon CloudFront

3: Values That You Specify When You Create or Update a Web Distribution - Amazon CloudFront

The correct answer is C.

Option A is incorrect because creating a new SCP that has two statements, one that allows access to the new range of IP addresses for all the S3 buckets and one that denies access to the old range of IP addresses for all the S3 buckets, is not a valid solution. SCPs are not resource-based policies, and they cannot specify the S3 buckets or the IP addresses as resources or conditions. SCPs can only control the actions that can be performed by the principals in the organization, not the access to specific resources. Moreover, setting a permissions boundary for the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role in the two OUs to deny access to the S3 buckets is not sufficient to revoke the permissions of the two OUs, as there might be other roles or users in those OUs that can still access the S3 buckets.

Option B is incorrect because creating a new SCP that has a statement that allows only the new range of IP addresses to access the S3 buckets is not a valid solution, for the same reason as option A. SCPs are not resource-based policies, and they cannot specify the S3 buckets or the IP addresses as resources or conditions. Creating another SCP that denies access to the S3 buckets and attaching it to the two OUs is also not a valid solution, as SCPs cannot specify the S3 buckets as resources either.

Option C is correct because it meets both requirements of changing the range of IP addresses that have permission to access the contents of the S3 buckets and revoking the permissions of two OUs in the company. On all the S3 buckets, configuring resource-based policies that allow only the new range of IP addresses to access the S3 buckets is a valid way to update the IP address ranges, as resource-based policies can specify both resources and conditions. Creating a new SCP that denies access to the S3 buckets and attaching it to the two OUs is also a valid way to revoke the permissions of those OUs, as SCPs can deny actions such as s3:PutObject or s3:GetObject on any resource.

Option D is incorrect because setting a permissions boundary for the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role in the two OUs to deny access to the S3 buckets is not sufficient to revoke the permissions of the two OUs, as there might be other roles or users in those OUs that can still access the S3 buckets. A permissions boundary is a policy that defines the maximum permissions that an IAM entity can have. However, it does not revoke any existing permissions that are granted by other policies.

A: If the ApproximateAgeOfOldestMessages indicate that orders are remaining in the SQS queue for longer than expected, the reserved concurrency limit may be set too small to keep up with the number of orders entering the queue and is being throttled. D: The DynamoDB table is using Auto Scaling. With Auto Scaling, you create a scaling policy that specifies whether you want to scale read capacity or write capacity (or both), and the minimum and maximum provisioned capacity unit settings for the table. The ThottledWriteRequests metric will indicate if there is a throttling issue on the DynamoDB table, which can be resolved by increasing the maximum write capacity units for the table ' s Auto Scaling policy.

A. The CloudFormation template should be modified to include a parameter that indicates the location of the .zip file containing the Lambda function ' s code. This allows the CloudFormation deploy action to use the correct artifact depending on the region. This is critical because Lambda functions need to reference their code artifacts from the same region they are being deployed in. B. You would also need to create a new CloudFormation deploy action for the us-east-1 Region within the pipeline. This action should be configured to use the CloudFormation template from the artifact that was specifically created for us-east-1.