Newly Released Amazon Web Services SAA-C03 Exam PDF

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

Option A:The ALB must accept HTTPS traffic from the public internet. Allowing inbound traffic on port 443 from 0.0.0.0/0 enables this functionality.

Option C:The ALB must forward HTTPS traffic to the web application servers on port 443. Outbound traffic for port 443 must be allowed for this communication.

Option E:The ALB must perform health checks on the web application servers over HTTPS on port 8443. Outbound traffic for port 8443 must be allowed for this purpose.

Option B:Allowing all outbound traffic is overly permissive and does not align with the specific requirements.

Option D and F:Inbound traffic to the ALB from the web application instances is unnecessary because the flow of traffic is from the ALB to the web application instances, not vice versa.

AWS Documentation References:

Application Load Balancer Security Groups

Health Checks for ALBs

The correct answer isCbecause the requirement specifically calls for anAmazon EBS data volumethat providesconfigurable and consistent IOPSfor a transaction-heavy application.Provisioned IOPS SSD (io2)volumes are designed for workloads that need high performance, low latency, and predictable I/O performance. These volumes are the best fit for applications that process a large number of transactions and require storage performance to remain stable under load.

Using agp3volume for the root device is appropriate because the operating system volume usually does not require the same high and sustained performance characteristics as the application data volume. Theio2data volume provides the ability to provision IOPS independently to match the application’s transactional demands. This separation of root and data storage is a common AWS design pattern for performance-sensitive workloads.

Option A is incorrect becausest1andsc1are HDD-based volumes intended for large, sequential workloads, not high-transaction workloads that require consistent low-latency I/O. Option B is also incorrect becausest1does not provide the required configurable and consistent IOPS characteristics. Option D is incorrect because the requirement explicitly states that the application needs anAmazon EBS data volume, and Amazon S3 is object storage rather than block storage attached as an EBS volume.

AWS storage best practices recommendProvisioned IOPS SSD volumesfor mission-critical applications, transactional systems, and workloads that need sustained, predictable performance. Therefore, agp3 root volumecombined with anio2 data volumeis the most appropriate solution for this use case.

The design already uses one transit gateway (TGW) per Region and inter-Region TGW peering, which addresses the multi-Region AWS-side routing. The remaining requirement is to extend on-premises connectivity over Direct Connect so that on-premises networks can reach VPCs attached to the TGWs across all three Regions. The most operationally efficient and scalable approach is to use AWS Direct Connect Gateway (DXGW) with a transit virtual interface (transit VIF) and then associate the Regional transit gateways to that DXGW.

Option C is purpose-built for this: a transit VIF is specifically used to connect a Direct Connect connection to a Direct Connect gateway, and a DXGW can then be associated to multiple transit gateways (and can be used across Regions), enabling centralized connectivity from on-premises to TGW-connected VPCs. With TGW attachments and TGW route tables, you can propagate and control routes across many VPCs and accounts, which fits the “50 accounts, thousands of VPCs” scale. Inter-Region TGW peering then allows on-premises routes learned via the DXGW/TGW in one Region to reach workloads in the other Regions through the TGW peering relationships, subject to routing configuration.

Option A is too limited and not scalable because it ties Direct Connect to a virtual private gateway (VGW) associated with a single VPC, which does not meet the multi-VPC, multi-account hub-and-spoke requirement. Option B incorrectly suggests associating a DXGW with a VGW “in each VPC” (VGW is per VPC and would not scale well here, and it doesn’t integrate with the TGW hub design you’ve already built). Option D is not the intended pattern: Site-to-Site VPN and public VIF do not replace the DXGW + transit VIF architecture for large-scale TGW-based private routing.