Q79Design High-Performing Architectures
A company runs an application on AWS. The application receives inconsistent levels of usage. The application uses AWS Direct Connect to connect to an on-premises MySQL-compatible database. The on-premises database consistently uses a minimum of 2 GiB of memory. The company wants to migrate the on-premises database to a managed AWS service. The company wants to use auto scaling capabilities to handle unexpected workload increases. Which solution will meet these requirements with the **LEAST administrative overhead**?
← → navigate · a answer
Community votes
Discussion · 14
C 11
The key reasons:
Aurora Serverless v2 provides auto-scaling so the database can handle inconsistent workloads and spikes automatically without admin intervention.
It can scale down to zero when not in use to minimize costs.
The minimum 1 ACU capacity is sufficient to replace the on-prem 2 GiB database based on the info given.
Serverless capabilities reduce admin overhead for capacity management.
DynamoDB lacks MySQL compatibility and requires more hands-on management.
RDS and provisioned Aurora require manually resizing instances to scale, increasing admin overhead.
8
the questions are hard from 500 +
7
Yes, I agree. I have been reading the pro questions and these are copy paste. On the bright side, it prepares you for the next step!
3
I dont think these are associate exam questions rather are from AWS professional exam
C 3
LEAST administrative overhead = Aurora Serverless
C 3
serverless = LEAST overhead
3
C is correct.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-serverless-v2.how-it-works.html#aurora-serverless-v2.how-it-works.capacity
2
Why not D?
C 2
C. Provision an Amazon Aurora Serverless v2 database with a minimum capacity of 1 Aurora capacity unit (ACU).
Suitability: Amazon Aurora Serverless v2 is a good option for applications with variable workloads because it automatically adjusts capacity based on demand. It can handle MySQL-compatible databases and supports auto-scaling. You can set the minimum and maximum capacity based on your needs, making it highly suitable for handling unexpected workload increases with minimal administrative overhead.
2
no autoscaling with RDS
C 2
C seems to be the right answer
Instead of provisioning and managing database servers, you specify Aurora capacity units (ACUs). Each ACU is a combination of approximately 2 gigabytes (GB) of memory, corresponding CPU, and networking. Database storage automatically scales from 10 gibibytes (GiB) to 128 tebibytes (TiB), the same as storage in a standard Aurora DB cluster
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-serverless-v1.how-it-works.html
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-serverless-v2.html
2
Because "LEAST administrative overhead" is a requirement. RDS configured with mem requirements is an admin overhead
2
> It can scale down to zero when not in use to minimize costs.
This part is not correct. Aurora Serverless v1 was able to scale to zero.
C 2
LEAST administrative overhead = Serverless