Courseiva

CCNA Design Cost Questions

75 of 170 questions · Page 1/3 · Design Cost topic · Answers revealed

1
Multi-Selectmedium

A startup runs a 24/7 web tier on Amazon EC2 with a stable baseline of 8 instances and a nightly analytics batch job that can resume from checkpoints if interrupted. The company wants to minimize monthly compute cost without hurting the always-on web tier. Which two actions should it take? Select two.

Select 2 answers
A.Buy a Compute Savings Plan for the steady web tier baseline.
B.Buy Standard Reserved Instances only for the nightly analytics batch job.
C.Run the batch job on Spot Instances and checkpoint progress frequently.
D.Move the entire workload to On-Demand Instances for maximum flexibility.
E.Use Dedicated Hosts for the batch job so the fleet is isolated.
AnswersA, C

A Compute Savings Plan reduces cost for the predictable baseline while preserving flexibility across instance families and Regions. That fits a 24/7 web tier that is expected to run continuously. It is cheaper than On-Demand for the committed portion and avoids overcommitting to a specific instance family.

Why this answer

A Compute Savings Plan offers the largest discount (up to 66%) in exchange for a 1- or 3-year hourly spend commitment, and it automatically applies to any EC2 instance family, size, or region. For the stable 8-instance web tier that runs 24/7, this plan provides significant cost savings while maintaining full flexibility to change instance types or even move to containers or Lambda, without affecting the always-on requirement.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often assume Reserved Instances are always the best choice for any steady workload, but for a part-time batch job, a Savings Plan or Spot is more cost-effective, and they may overlook that Spot Instances with checkpointing are ideal for fault-tolerant, interruptible workloads.

2
MCQmedium

A marketing site runs on x86 EC2 instances and uses open-source software with no architecture-specific licensing restriction. What should be evaluated to reduce compute cost?

A.Cross-Region data replication for all data
B.io2 Block Express volumes for all instances
C.AWS Graviton-based instances after performance testing
D.Dedicated Hosts by default
AnswerC

AWS Graviton-based instances after performance testing is the correct approach because Graviton processors (arm64 architecture) often deliver up to 20% better price-performance than comparable x86 instances for scale-out, stateless, and lighter-workload deployments like a marketing site running open-source software. The key is to first run performance testing to verify that your specific application stack—including any compiled binaries, libraries, or dependencies—is fully compatible and performs adequately on the arm64 architecture. If the workload is portable (e.g., running on Linux with open-source code), moving to Graviton instances reduces compute cost without sacrificing performance, making it a cost-effective modernization step.

Why this answer

AWS Graviton-based instances (ARM architecture) offer up to 40% better price-performance compared to comparable x86 instances for many workloads. Since the marketing site uses open-source software with no architecture-specific licensing restrictions, migrating to Graviton after performance testing can significantly reduce compute costs without sacrificing performance.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates assume Dedicated Hosts (Option D) always reduce costs due to 'dedicated' implying efficiency, but they actually increase costs unless specific licensing requirements (e.g., Windows Server or SQL Server) mandate physical isolation.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because cross-Region data replication increases storage and data transfer costs, not reduces compute costs; it is a disaster recovery strategy, not a cost-optimization technique for compute. Option B is wrong because io2 Block Express volumes are high-performance, high-cost SSDs designed for latency-sensitive workloads, not for reducing compute costs; they would increase overall costs without addressing compute efficiency. Option D is wrong because Dedicated Hosts incur additional hourly charges for physical server isolation and are typically used for licensing or compliance requirements, not for cost reduction; they would increase compute costs compared to shared tenancy.

3
MCQeasy

A media processing pipeline runs batch jobs overnight. The jobs are stateless, can be restarted from checkpoints, and can tolerate interruptions. The team wants to minimize compute cost. Which EC2 approach is the best fit?

A.Use On-Demand instances to guarantee uninterrupted capacity.
B.Use Spot Instances and design the jobs to handle interruptions by checkpointing and retrying.
C.Use a 1-year Reserved Instance for the current instance type and lock the fleet to it.
D.Use Savings Plans but still treat interruptions as failures that require manual intervention.
AnswerB

Spot is the most cost-effective EC2 option when the workload can handle interruption. Because the jobs are stateless and can resume from checkpoints, losing an instance due to a Spot interruption does not lose progress. The design aligns directly with Spot’s best-effort interruption model, minimizing compute cost while still completing the batch work.

Why this answer

Spot Instances offer significant cost savings (up to 90% off On-Demand) but can be reclaimed by AWS with a 2-minute interruption notice. Since the batch jobs are stateless, checkpointable, and interruption-tolerant, they are an ideal workload for Spot Instances. Designing the jobs to save progress to a durable checkpoint (e.g., Amazon S3) and automatically retry on interruption ensures resilience while minimizing compute cost.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often assume all production workloads need On-Demand or Reserved Instances for reliability, failing to recognize that stateless, checkpointable batch jobs are the perfect use case for Spot Instances to drastically reduce costs.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because On-Demand instances are the most expensive pricing model and provide no cost optimization benefit for workloads that can tolerate interruptions. Option C is wrong because a 1-year Reserved Instance locks the fleet to a specific instance type and commits to a full year of payment, which is inflexible and not cost-optimal for a batch workload that may vary in size or instance needs. Option D is wrong because Savings Plans provide a discount in exchange for a 1- or 3-year hourly spend commitment, but they do not inherently handle interruptions; treating interruptions as failures requiring manual intervention defeats the purpose of automation and increases operational overhead.

4
MCQhard

Based on the exhibit, your application runs entirely in private subnets and only needs to reach Amazon S3, Amazon DynamoDB, AWS Secrets Manager, and CloudWatch Logs. The monthly bill is dominated by NAT Gateway charges. Which change most directly reduces cost while preserving private connectivity to these AWS services?

A.Replace the NAT Gateway with an Internet Gateway and keep the current private subnet routes unchanged.
B.Add a second NAT Gateway in another Availability Zone to reduce cross-AZ data transfer charges.
C.Create only interface endpoints for all four services and keep the NAT Gateway for fallback.
D.Create S3 and DynamoDB gateway endpoints, create interface endpoints for Secrets Manager and CloudWatch Logs, update route tables, and remove the NAT Gateway.
AnswerD

S3 and DynamoDB use gateway endpoints, which are the cost-effective private path for those services. Secrets Manager and CloudWatch Logs require interface endpoints for private access. Once these are in place, the NAT Gateway is no longer needed for this workload, eliminating the hourly and per-GB NAT charges while keeping traffic on the AWS network.

Why this answer

It replaces the costly NAT Gateway with free VPC Gateway Endpoints for S3 and DynamoDB, and uses AWS PrivateLink interface endpoints for Secrets Manager and CloudWatch Logs. This eliminates all internet-bound data transfer costs while keeping traffic entirely within the AWS network, directly addressing the cost concern without sacrificing private connectivity.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates assume all AWS services require the same type of VPC endpoint, leading them to either use only interface endpoints (costly) or keep the NAT Gateway as a safety net, missing the opportunity to use free gateway endpoints for S3 and DynamoDB.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because an Internet Gateway alone does not enable private subnets to reach AWS services; private subnets still need a NAT device to route traffic through the Internet Gateway, so removing the NAT Gateway without adding endpoints would break connectivity. Option B is wrong because adding a second NAT Gateway increases costs (additional hourly charges and cross-AZ data transfer fees) rather than reducing them, and the current bill is dominated by NAT Gateway charges, not cross-AZ traffic. Option C is wrong because using interface endpoints for all four services would incur per-hour and per-GB data processing charges for S3 and DynamoDB, which are more expensive than using free gateway endpoints for those two services; keeping the NAT Gateway as a fallback also retains unnecessary costs.

5
Multi-Selectmedium

A solutions architect is designing a cost-optimized data storage solution for a large dataset that is accessed infrequently but must be retained for compliance for 7 years. Which three actions should the architect take to minimize costs? (Choose three.)

Select 3 answers
.Store the data in Amazon S3 Glacier Deep Archive immediately after creation.
.Use Amazon S3 lifecycle policies to transition data from S3 Standard to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 30 days.
.Enable S3 Intelligent-Tiering to automatically move data between access tiers based on usage patterns.
.Store all data in Amazon EBS gp2 volumes attached to an EC2 instance for low-latency access.
.Use S3 Object Lock in compliance mode to prevent data deletion during the retention period.
.Replicate all data to a second AWS Region using S3 Cross-Region Replication to ensure durability.

Why this answer

Amazon S3 lifecycle policies allow you to define rules that automatically transition objects to colder storage tiers like S3 Glacier Deep Archive after a specified period. This approach minimizes costs by keeping data in S3 Standard only for the initial 30 days when it might be accessed, then moving it to the lowest-cost storage class for the remaining compliance period. S3 Intelligent-Tiering automatically optimizes costs by monitoring access patterns and moving data between frequent, infrequent, and archive access tiers without manual intervention.

S3 Object Lock in compliance mode prevents any user, including the root user, from deleting or overwriting objects during the retention period, ensuring regulatory compliance.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may think immediate archiving to Glacier Deep Archive is the cheapest option, but they overlook the need for lifecycle policies to balance initial access needs with long-term cost savings, and they may confuse durability (which S3 already provides) with compliance retention, leading them to select unnecessary replication.

6
MCQmedium

A team serves static web assets (JS, CSS, images) from an Amazon S3 origin through CloudFront. Recently, the S3 origin has received a high number of requests for the same files, increasing origin data transfer costs. CloudFront access logs show many cache misses, and each request includes a unique query string used only for tracking (for example, ?utm=...). The application does not require query-string-specific content. What CloudFront change will most directly reduce origin fetches and cost?

A.Update the CloudFront cache policy to exclude query strings from the cache key so that requests differing only by tracking query parameters reuse the same cached object.
B.Lower the minimum TTL and set Cache-Control headers to no-store to force CloudFront to revalidate more often.
C.Enable Origin Shield to ensure all origin fetches go through a single regional shield with no other configuration changes.
D.Switch the S3 origin from S3 to a different storage class optimized for request rates, keeping the cache key the same.
AnswerA

CloudFront cache misses increase when the cache key includes values that vary per request. If the tracking query string is part of the cache key, each unique ?utm value generates a separate cache entry even though the underlying object (JS/CSS/image) is identical, causing repeated origin fetches. Excluding query strings from the cache key collapses those variations into a single cached object, increasing the cache hit rate and reducing origin fetches and origin data transfer.

Why this answer

CloudFront's cache policy controls which parts of a request (including query strings) are included in the cache key. By excluding the tracking query strings (e.g., `?utm=...`) from the cache key, CloudFront will treat all requests for the same file as identical, serving the cached object regardless of the query string. This directly reduces the number of origin fetches (cache misses) and lowers S3 data transfer costs, as the application does not require query-string-specific content.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may think enabling Origin Shield (Option C) or changing storage classes (Option D) will solve the problem, but they overlook the fundamental issue of cache key fragmentation caused by unique query strings, which is directly addressed by adjusting the cache policy.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because lowering the minimum TTL and setting `Cache-Control: no-store` would force CloudFront to revalidate or bypass the cache entirely, increasing origin fetches and costs, not reducing them. Option C is wrong because enabling Origin Shield alone, without adjusting the cache key to exclude query strings, does not address the root cause of cache misses caused by unique query strings; Origin Shield would still forward each unique query string request to the origin. Option D is wrong because switching the S3 storage class (e.g., to S3 Standard-IA or One Zone-IA) does not change the cache key behavior; the high number of unique query strings would still cause cache misses and origin fetches, and some storage classes may even incur higher per-request costs.

7
MCQeasy

You store application logs in an S3 bucket. After 30 days, the logs are rarely accessed, but you must retain them for 1 year for compliance. Which S3 feature is the best way to reduce storage cost while meeting the retention requirement?

A.Create an S3 lifecycle rule to transition older objects to a colder storage class after 30 days, then expire after 1 year
B.Keep all logs in S3 Standard and rely on lower request rates to reduce cost
C.Copy logs to EBS snapshots each week and delete the original files
D.Use S3 replication to a second bucket in another region to reduce costs
AnswerA

S3 lifecycle policies can automatically transition objects to lower-cost storage classes based on age. Transitioning after 30 days reduces ongoing storage costs because the logs are rarely accessed, while expiring after 1 year ensures you still meet the compliance retention window.

Why this answer

An S3 Lifecycle rule can automatically transition objects from S3 Standard to a colder storage class (e.g., S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval or S3 Glacier Deep Archive) after 30 days, reducing storage costs for rarely accessed logs. After 1 year, the rule can expire the objects, which permanently deletes them, meeting the compliance retention requirement without manual intervention.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may think S3 Standard is always the cheapest option for infrequently accessed data, but they overlook the significant cost savings from lifecycle transitions to colder storage classes like S3 Glacier Deep Archive, which are designed for long-term archival with rare access.

Why the other options are wrong

B

S3 Standard is the most expensive storage class; relying on lower request rates does not reduce the per-GB storage cost, so it fails to minimize cost for rarely accessed logs.

C

Copying logs to EBS snapshots weekly is not cost-effective for long-term retention because EBS snapshots are designed for block-level backups of EC2 instances, not for storing log files. Additionally, this approach incurs ongoing costs for snapshot storage and does not provide native lifecycle management for infrequently accessed data.

D

S3 replication does not reduce storage costs; it increases them by storing duplicate data in another region. The question asks for cost reduction, not data redundancy or disaster recovery.

8
MCQhard

A risk simulation workload generates analytics files that are accessed unpredictably. Some files become hot again months later. The team wants automatic storage cost optimisation without retrieval delays. What should be used?

A.Manual monthly review and object copying
B.S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval for all files
C.S3 Intelligent-Tiering
D.EFS One Zone for analytics files
AnswerC

S3 Intelligent-Tiering automatically monitors and moves objects between four access tiers—frequent, infrequent, archive instant, and archive access—based on changing usage patterns, with zero retrieval fees and no latency impact. It allows the risk simulation workload to pay only for the storage class each file actually needs, while keeping every object immediately available for analysis.

Why this answer

S3 Intelligent-Tiering is the correct choice because it automatically moves objects between access tiers (frequent, infrequent, and archive instant access) based on changing access patterns, without any retrieval delays. This handles the unpredictable access described—files that become hot again months later—by keeping them in the archive instant access tier until access resumes, then promoting them instantly. It optimizes storage costs automatically without manual intervention or cold retrieval waits.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often choose S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval for cost savings, overlooking the 'without retrieval delays' requirement, which disqualifies any cold storage option that requires restoration time.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because manual monthly review and object copying is not automatic, introduces operational overhead, and risks cost inefficiency or retrieval delays if the review cycle misses changing access patterns. Option B is wrong because S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval has retrieval delays (minutes to hours) and is not suitable for files that may become hot again unpredictably, as it would cause unacceptable wait times for immediate access. Option D is wrong because EFS One Zone is a file system, not an object storage service, and does not provide the cost optimization or automatic tiering needed for unpredictable access patterns on analytics files.

9
Multi-Selectmedium

A company runs a stateless web application on Amazon EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. The application experiences predictable traffic patterns: low traffic at night and high traffic during business hours. The company wants to optimize costs without compromising availability. Which two actions should be taken? (Choose two.)

Select 2 answers
A.Configure an Auto Scaling group with scheduled scaling to match the predictable traffic patterns.
B.Use a Network Load Balancer instead of an Application Load Balancer to reduce costs.
C.Enable detailed monitoring for the EC2 instances to improve scaling responsiveness.
D.Purchase Reserved Instances or Savings Plans for the baseline capacity.
E.Use Spot Instances for all instances in the Auto Scaling group to reduce compute costs.
AnswersA, D

Scheduled scaling allows the Auto Scaling group to adjust capacity based on known traffic patterns, such as scaling out before business hours and scaling in at night. This ensures sufficient capacity during peaks and reduces costs during low-traffic periods by terminating unused instances. It directly addresses the predictable nature of the workload.

Why this answer

Scheduled scaling aligns capacity with predictable traffic, scaling out during business hours and in at night to reduce costs. Purchasing Reserved Instances or Savings Plans for the baseline covers the continuously running capacity at a discount. Together, these actions optimize cost while maintaining availability.

Other options either risk availability, add cost, or do not address the predictable pattern effectively.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that Spot Instances are always the best cost-saving measure, but using them for all instances can jeopardize availability in a stateless web application, and detailed monitoring adds cost without addressing the predictable scaling need.

10
MCQmedium

An S3 bucket stores user-uploaded images. Access patterns are unpredictable: some objects are never read again, while others are occasionally retrieved months later. The team wants to reduce storage cost without having to manually track access frequency or run periodic analyses. Which S3 storage and lifecycle approach is the best fit?

A.Enable S3 Intelligent-Tiering so objects can automatically move between access tiers based on observed access patterns.
B.Use S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval for all objects immediately to minimize storage cost.
C.Create a lifecycle rule that transitions objects to Standard-IA after a fixed 30 days, regardless of access.
D.Keep all objects in S3 Standard and reduce costs by enabling server access logging compression.
AnswerA

S3 Intelligent-Tiering is designed for unknown or changing access patterns. It monitors access and automatically moves objects between tiers (for example, between frequent-access and infrequent-access tiers) based on actual usage, which avoids the need to manually decide transition schedules. This directly meets the requirement to reduce storage cost while eliminating ongoing manual tracking or periodic analysis.

Why this answer

S3 Intelligent-Tiering is the best fit because it automatically moves objects between access tiers (frequent, infrequent, archive instant, archive) based on changing access patterns, eliminating the need for manual tracking or lifecycle rules. This optimizes storage costs for unpredictable access patterns without requiring you to define fixed time-based transitions or perform periodic analyses.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often choose a fixed lifecycle rule (Option C) thinking it is simpler, but they overlook the retrieval fees and inefficiency of applying a rigid time-based policy to unpredictable access patterns, whereas Intelligent-Tiering adapts dynamically without manual tuning.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because storing all objects immediately in S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval incurs higher retrieval costs and minimum storage charges (90 days) for objects that may never be accessed again, and it does not adapt to unpredictable patterns. Option C is wrong because a fixed 30-day transition to Standard-IA does not account for objects that are accessed frequently after 30 days, leading to retrieval fees, and it fails to optimize for objects that are never accessed again. Option D is wrong because enabling server access logging compression does not reduce storage costs for the objects themselves; it only reduces log storage size, and keeping all objects in S3 Standard is more expensive than using Intelligent-Tiering for unpredictable access.

11
MCQeasy

A small analytics team runs a nightly batch job on a single Amazon EC2 instance. The job starts at 2:00 AM and finishes by 4:00 AM. The instance is idle for the rest of the day. The team wants to reduce EC2 costs and is willing to accept that the instance may be stopped and started. Which action will reduce costs MOST effectively?

A.Move the job to a larger instance type to finish faster.
B.Enable detailed monitoring and create a CloudWatch alarm to reboot the instance if CPU utilization is low.
C.Stop the instance when the job completes and start it again before the next run using an automated schedule.
D.Purchase a 1-year All Upfront Reserved Instance for the instance.
AnswerC

Stopping an instance when it is not needed means you do not pay for compute hours while it is idle. Since the job runs for only about two hours each night, stopping the instance for the remaining 22 hours drastically reduces cost. Automated start and stop can be implemented with instance scheduler solutions or EventBridge and Lambda.

Why this answer

When an instance is needed only for a short, predictable window, stopping it during idle hours removes the compute charges for those hours. Automated start and stop scheduling is a simple and effective cost optimization for intermittent workloads. Reserved Instances and larger instance types do not eliminate the cost of idle time.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that a Reserved Instance or a larger instance type will reduce cost, when the biggest saving comes from not paying for the instance at all during the long idle period.

12
MCQeasy

A company runs EC2 workloads in one region with somewhat steady overall demand. Over time, the team frequently changes instance families (for performance/optimization) and sometimes changes instance size, but wants predictable cost discounts. Which purchase option provides the best balance of cost savings and flexibility?

A.Standard Reserved Instances for a specific instance family and size only.
B.Savings Plans (Compute Savings Plans), scoped for flexible EC2 usage in the region.
C.Spot Instances for all workloads, assuming interruptions will never happen.
D.On-Demand only, because it avoids the complexity of purchase option scopes.
AnswerB

Compute Savings Plans provide discounted pricing for steady usage while allowing flexibility across instance families, OS, and sizes within the selected scope (for example, region). That matches the scenario: demand is steady enough for discounts, but the underlying instance type choices change frequently to meet performance needs.

Why this answer

Compute Savings Plans offer the best balance of cost savings and flexibility because they provide up to 66% discount in exchange for a commitment to a consistent amount of compute usage (measured per hour) in a region, but they automatically apply to any EC2 instance family, size, OS, or tenancy, as well as AWS Fargate and Lambda. This matches the team's need to frequently change instance families and sizes while still getting predictable discounts, unlike Standard RIs which lock you to a specific family and size.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often confuse Standard Reserved Instances (which lock family/size) with Convertible RIs (which allow family changes but require a 1:1 exchange and still have restrictions), or they assume Savings Plans only apply to EC2, missing that Compute Savings Plans also cover Fargate and Lambda, making them the most flexible option for compute cost optimization.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because Standard Reserved Instances require a commitment to a specific instance family and size (e.g., m5.large), which prevents the team from freely changing instance families for performance optimization without incurring modification fees or losing the discount. Option C is wrong because Spot Instances can be interrupted with a 2-minute warning when AWS needs capacity back, making them unsuitable for steady workloads where interruptions are assumed to never happen—this violates the fundamental design of Spot as a cost-optimization tool for fault-tolerant or flexible workloads. Option D is wrong because On-Demand pricing offers no discount (0% savings) and avoids complexity only by paying full price, which fails to meet the requirement for predictable cost savings.

13
MCQmedium

A batch analytics job has unpredictable DynamoDB traffic with long idle periods and occasional spikes. Which capacity mode should minimize operational overhead and avoid paying for idle provisioned capacity?

A.DynamoDB on-demand capacity mode
B.Reserved capacity for maximum daily traffic
C.Provisioned capacity set for peak traffic
D.Global tables in every Region
AnswerA

On-demand capacity is suitable for unpredictable workloads and charges per request without capacity planning.

Why this answer

DynamoDB on-demand capacity mode automatically scales to handle unpredictable traffic spikes and idle periods, charging only for the reads and writes you perform. This eliminates the need to provision capacity for peak traffic, avoiding costs during long idle periods and reducing operational overhead from capacity management.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse 'Reserved capacity' with DynamoDB's reserved capacity option (which does not exist) or think provisioned capacity is always cheaper, ignoring the cost of idle provisioned throughput during unpredictable workloads.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because Reserved capacity is not a DynamoDB pricing model; it applies to Amazon EC2 and RDS, not DynamoDB, and would still require provisioning for peak traffic. Option C is wrong because Provisioned capacity set for peak traffic would incur costs for idle periods when traffic is low, as you pay for the provisioned capacity regardless of actual usage. Option D is wrong because Global tables are a replication feature for multi-Region active-active setups, not a capacity mode; they do not address cost optimization for unpredictable traffic and add complexity and cost.

14
MCQhard

Based on the exhibit, the team serves versioned JavaScript and CSS files from an S3 origin through CloudFront. After a release, the cache hit ratio dropped and origin fetches increased sharply. What change best reduces both CloudFront and S3 costs without changing the application’s public behavior?

A.Increase the CloudFront price class to include more edge locations.
B.Create a cache policy that excludes Authorization, cookies, and unnecessary query strings, and narrow the origin request policy to forward only the headers the S3 origin actually needs.
C.Disable CloudFront and serve the files directly from S3 to avoid cache invalidation overhead.
D.Use Lambda@Edge to rewrite every request into a unique path so that clients never receive stale files.
AnswerB

The hit ratio is low because CloudFront is varying the cache on request attributes that do not change versioned static files. Removing Authorization, cookies, and irrelevant query strings from the cache key allows CloudFront to reuse cached objects across users and sessions. Reducing the origin request policy avoids sending unnecessary viewer context to the origin. Because the filenames are already versioned, long TTLs can be used safely and will lower origin requests and S3 request costs.

Why this answer

B is correct because versioned JavaScript and CSS files are immutable, so CloudFront should cache them aggressively. By creating a cache policy that excludes unnecessary headers (like Authorization and cookies) and query strings, and narrowing the origin request policy to forward only required headers, you maximize cache hits and reduce origin fetches. This directly lowers both CloudFront data transfer costs (fewer origin requests) and S3 request costs (fewer GET requests), without altering the application's public behavior.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often think increasing edge locations (Option A) or using Lambda@Edge (Option D) will improve performance, but for versioned static files, the real cost optimization comes from maximizing cache hits by properly configuring cache and origin request policies, not from adding more infrastructure or rewriting requests.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because increasing the CloudFront price class to include more edge locations increases costs (more regional data transfer) and does not improve cache hit ratio for versioned static files—it may even reduce it by spreading requests across more locations. Option C is wrong because disabling CloudFront and serving files directly from S3 eliminates caching entirely, drastically increasing S3 request costs (GET, data transfer) and latency, while also losing CloudFront's edge caching benefits. Option D is wrong because using Lambda@Edge to rewrite every request into a unique path would bypass caching entirely (each unique path is a cache miss), increasing origin fetches and costs, and it does not solve the stale-file problem because versioned files are already immutable.

15
MCQmedium

A digital agency runs a web application on a fleet of Amazon EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. Traffic is steady and predictable during business hours but drops to near zero overnight and on weekends. The operations team wants to reduce compute costs without impacting availability during peak periods. They cannot modify the application code and must keep the same instance types. What should a solutions architect recommend?

A.Enable burstable T3 instances and rely on CPU credits to absorb the peak traffic periods.
B.Switch the fleet to Spot Instances and configure the Auto Scaling group to maintain the same desired capacity at all times.
C.Purchase a 1-year Standard Reserved Instance for each instance and leave the fleet running 24/7.
D.Create an Auto Scaling group with a scheduled scaling policy that scales the desired capacity up before business hours and down after hours.
AnswerD

Scheduled scaling lets you increase or decrease the desired capacity of an Auto Scaling group based on a date and time, which matches a workload with a known, repeating peak pattern. Scaling in overnight and on weekends terminates unneeded instances, so you pay only for the capacity actually required, while scaling out before business hours preserves availability during peak traffic.

Why this answer

The workload has a predictable daily and weekly pattern, so the most direct cost control is to align capacity with demand. A scheduled scaling policy changes desired capacity at known times, terminating instances when traffic is near zero and adding them back before the peak. This avoids paying for idle capacity while keeping the application available when users need it, and it requires no application changes.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that a Reserved Instance or Savings Plan reduces cost for a workload that is idle half the time, when in fact commitments bill for the full term regardless of utilization.

16
MCQmedium

An application runs on EC2 in us-east-1 and frequently reads objects from an S3 bucket that is physically located in us-west-2. The finance team reports unexpectedly high inter-Region data transfer charges because the application retrieves objects for many user requests. A constraint: the bucket in us-west-2 must remain the system of record for compliance, but the application can read from a replica in us-east-1. What should the solutions architect do to minimize network spend while meeting the compliance constraint?

A.Enable S3 Cross-Region Replication from the us-west-2 source bucket to a destination bucket in us-east-1, and update the app to read from the us-east-1 bucket.
B.Create an interface VPC endpoint for S3 in us-east-1 and keep all object reads pointing to the us-west-2 bucket.
C.Use VPC peering between two regions and route all requests to the us-west-2 bucket over the peering link.
D.Use Route 53 latency-based routing to send users to a us-west-2 web endpoint and keep the S3 bucket unchanged.
AnswerA

S3 Cross-Region Replication (CRR) creates an asynchronous, automatic copy of every object in the us-west-2 source bucket to a destination bucket in us-east-1. By updating the application to read from the us-east-1 bucket, all GET requests stay within the same Region, eliminating inter-Region data transfer charges that currently accrue for each cross-Region read. Since CRR transfers each object once during replication (rather than on every read), this pattern becomes cost-effective when the application frequently reads the same large objects. You must still account for a short replication lag, so the app should tolerate eventual consistency for newly written objects.

Why this answer

S3 Cross-Region Replication (CRR) automatically replicates objects from the source bucket in us-west-2 to a destination bucket in us-east-1, satisfying the compliance requirement that the us-west-2 bucket remains the system of record. By updating the application to read from the us-east-1 bucket, all read traffic stays within the same region, eliminating inter-region data transfer charges for object retrievals. This approach directly addresses the cost issue while preserving the original bucket as the authoritative source.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may assume VPC endpoints or peering can eliminate inter-region costs, but S3 data transfer charges are based on the bucket's physical region, not the network path, so only replicating the data locally avoids the charges.

Why the other options are wrong

B

An interface VPC endpoint does not eliminate inter-region data transfer charges; traffic from the endpoint in us-east-1 to the bucket in us-west-2 still traverses the public internet or AWS backbone across regions, incurring costs.

C

VPC peering does not reduce inter-region data transfer charges because traffic between peered VPCs in different regions still incurs standard inter-region data transfer costs. Additionally, the application would still read from the us-west-2 bucket, not reducing costs.

D

Route 53 latency-based routing directs user traffic to a web endpoint in us-west-2, but the application still reads from the S3 bucket in us-west-2, incurring inter-Region data transfer charges. It does not create a replica in us-east-1, so the compliance constraint of reading from a replica is not met.

17
Multi-Selecthard

A solutions architect is reviewing an Amazon S3 bucket that stores application assets. The bucket has S3 Versioning enabled and accumulates many noncurrent object versions that are no longer needed. The team wants to reduce storage cost while preserving the ability to recover from accidental deletions of current objects. Which two actions should the architect take? (Choose two.)

Select 2 answers
A.Enable S3 Transfer Acceleration on the bucket to reduce storage charges.
B.Configure a lifecycle rule to expire noncurrent versions after a defined number of days.
C.Add a lifecycle rule to abort incomplete multipart uploads after a set number of days.
D.Transition current object versions to S3 Glacier Deep Archive immediately upon creation.
E.Disable S3 Versioning on the bucket to stop new versions from being created.
AnswersB, C

Expiring noncurrent versions after a retention period removes old versions that are no longer needed, directly reducing storage charges while keeping current objects and recent versions protected. This is the standard S3 lifecycle action for controlling version accumulation cost.

Why this answer

The two cost drivers are accumulated noncurrent versions and lingering incomplete multipart uploads. A lifecycle rule expiring noncurrent versions removes unneeded old copies while preserving current-object recovery, and a rule aborting incomplete multipart uploads eliminates billable orphaned parts. Together they reduce storage cost without disabling versioning or harming retrieval of active assets.

Exam trap

The trap here is thinking that disabling versioning is the way to cut version-related storage cost, when it neither deletes existing noncurrent versions nor preserves the accidental-deletion recovery the team requires.

18
Multi-Selectmedium

A team runs a containerized API on Amazon ECS on Fargate in a single Region. Traffic is steady during business hours but drops to near zero overnight, and the team wants to reduce cost without rewriting the application. The team already uses Application Load Balancer and CloudWatch. Which two actions will reduce cost while keeping the API available? (Choose two.)

Select 2 answers
A.Reduce the Fargate task CPU and memory to the minimum supported values for all tasks regardless of load.
B.Use Fargate Spot capacity for a portion of the ECS tasks and keep a baseline of on-demand Fargate tasks behind the load balancer.
C.Switch the ECS service launch type to EC2 and purchase 3-year All Upfront Reserved Instances for the cluster.
D.Configure ECS Service Auto Scaling with a target tracking policy on ALB request count per target to scale tasks down overnight.
E.Enable ECS Exec on all tasks and remove the Application Load Balancer to save on ALB hourly charges.
AnswersB, D

Fargate Spot offers up to 70% lower cost for interruptible tasks, and mixing it with a small on-demand baseline preserves availability when Spot capacity is reclaimed. Because the API runs behind an ALB with multiple tasks, a reclaimed Spot task is replaced and traffic continues, making this a valid cost reduction.

Why this answer

Combining Fargate Spot for part of the fleet with a small on-demand baseline lowers the hourly compute rate while preserving availability, and target tracking on ALB request count per target shrinks the task count overnight so the service pays only for needed capacity. Together they reduce cost without rewriting the application and keep the API reachable through the load balancer.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming Fargate has no Spot option or that scaling only adjusts tasks, when in fact Fargate Spot and Application Auto Scaling target tracking both reduce cost while keeping the service available.

19
MCQmedium

A company runs a batch processing job on Amazon EC2 instances that takes approximately 4 hours to complete. The job can be interrupted and resumed from a checkpoint. The company wants to minimize the cost of running this job. Which pricing model should they use?

A.Dedicated Hosts
B.Spot Instances
C.Reserved Instances
D.On-Demand Instances
AnswerB

Spot Instances offer the largest discounts (up to 90% off On-Demand) and are ideal for fault-tolerant, flexible workloads like batch processing that can be interrupted and resumed. Since the job checkpoints its progress, it can handle interruptions gracefully. Using Spot Instances directly addresses the cost minimization goal while accommodating the job's interruptible nature.

Why this answer

Spot Instances are the most cost-effective choice for interruptible batch jobs that can checkpoint and resume. They leverage spare EC2 capacity at steep discounts, and the job's design tolerates interruptions. Reserved and On-Demand pricing do not offer the same savings for this use case, and Dedicated Hosts are overkill.

Thus, Spot Instances align with both the workload characteristics and the cost objective.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that any batch job should use Reserved Instances for savings, overlooking that the job is interruptible and short-term, making Spot Instances the better fit.

20
MCQmedium

A data analytics team runs an Amazon EMR cluster for 2 hours every weekday morning to process a daily batch. The cluster must be fully available during that window, and the team wants the lowest possible compute cost. The jobs are stateless and can be re-run if a node fails. Which configuration should a solutions architect recommend?

A.Provision the EMR cluster entirely with Dedicated Hosts to guarantee physical isolation and predictable pricing.
B.Provision the EMR cluster with On-Demand Instances for the master node and Spot Instances for task nodes.
C.Provision the EMR cluster with On-Demand Instances for all node types and enable automatic scaling.
D.Provision the EMR cluster with Reserved Instances for a 3-year term to lock in the lowest hourly rate.
AnswerB

Using On-Demand for the master node keeps the cluster's control plane stable, while Spot Instances on task nodes can reduce compute cost because the stateless batch jobs can be re-run if a Spot node is reclaimed. This matches the SAA-C03 cost-optimization goal for transient, fault-tolerant analytics workloads.

Why this answer

The workload is a short, recurring, fault-tolerant batch job, so the best cost strategy is to combine a stable On-Demand master with Spot task nodes that can be reclaimed and restarted. This preserves cluster availability while taking advantage of Spot's lower pricing. Long-term commitments and Dedicated Hosts are poor fits because the compute is neither continuous nor compliance-driven.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming any long-running or recurring workload automatically benefits from Reserved Instances, when short daily batch jobs are better served by Spot for fault-tolerant task nodes.

21
MCQmedium

A company has a steady-state workload on Amazon EC2 that runs 24/7 for the next 3 years. They want to achieve the maximum possible discount and are willing to make a upfront payment. Which purchasing option should they choose?

A.Reserved Instances with All Upfront payment
B.On-Demand Instances
C.Spot Instances
D.Dedicated Hosts with All Upfront payment
AnswerA

Reserved Instances with All Upfront payment provide the highest discount (up to 72% off On-Demand) for a 1- or 3-year commitment. By paying the entire amount upfront, the company maximizes savings. This option is ideal for steady-state workloads where the instance type and region are known, and the company is willing to commit for 3 years.

Why this answer

Reserved Instances with All Upfront payment offer the maximum discount for a 3-year commitment on a steady-state workload. This option provides significant savings over On-Demand and is more reliable than Spot. Dedicated Hosts are not cost-optimized for general workloads.

Therefore, All Upfront Reserved Instances are the best choice for maximum discount.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that Spot Instances always provide the greatest discount, but they are unsuitable for workloads that cannot tolerate interruptions, such as a 24/7 steady-state service.

22
Multi-Selecthard

A healthcare company stores 80 TB of medical imaging data in Amazon S3. The data is written once and must be retained for seven years for compliance. New images are accessed frequently for the first 30 days, then almost never after that, but auditors occasionally request a specific image with no advance notice and expect it within minutes. The company wants to minimize storage cost while meeting the retrieval requirement. Which two actions should a solutions architect recommend? (Choose two.)

Select 2 answers
A.Configure an S3 Lifecycle policy to transition objects to S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval after 30 days.
B.Enable S3 Versioning on the bucket to protect the imaging data from accidental deletion.
C.Add an S3 Object Lock retention policy in compliance mode for seven years.
D.Configure an S3 Lifecycle policy to transition objects to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 30 days.
E.Configure an S3 Lifecycle policy to transition objects to S3 Standard-IA after 30 days.
AnswersA, C

S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval is designed for long-lived, rarely accessed data that still needs millisecond retrieval. It costs significantly less than S3 Standard-IA for storage while meeting the auditors' requirement to fetch any image within minutes. This aligns storage cost with the access pattern over the seven-year retention period.

Why this answer

Transitioning to S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval after 30 days matches the long-term, rarely accessed pattern while preserving millisecond retrieval for auditor requests, which keeps storage cost low. Adding a seven-year compliance-mode Object Lock enforces the regulatory retention mandate. Together these actions satisfy both the cost and compliance requirements without compromising retrieval speed.

Exam trap

The trap here is choosing the cheapest archive tier or a versioning control, when the retrieval-time requirement eliminates Deep Archive and the retention mandate calls for Object Lock.

23
MCQmedium

A production internal reporting portal runs continuously on EC2 with predictable usage for the next three years. The team wants a discount while retaining some instance-family flexibility. What should they buy?

A.Spot Instances only
B.Dedicated Instances
C.Compute Savings Plan
D.S3 Intelligent-Tiering
AnswerC

A Compute Savings Plan is the most cost-effective option because it provides a significant discount (up to 66% versus On-Demand) in exchange for a one- or three-year hourly spend commitment, while allowing flexibility across instance families, sizes, availability zones, regions, and even compute services like Lambda and Fargate. For a production portal that runs continuously, the predictable, always-on usage justifies the commitment, and the plan automatically applies to any EC2 instance usage without needing specific instance configurations.

Why this answer

A Compute Savings Plan offers the lowest prices on EC2 usage (up to 66% off On-Demand) in exchange for a 1- or 3-year commitment, and it automatically applies to any EC2 instance family in any region, giving the flexibility the team needs. Since the workload runs continuously with predictable usage for three years, this plan is ideal for reducing costs while retaining the ability to change instance families if needed.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often confuse Compute Savings Plans with EC2 Instance Savings Plans, assuming any Savings Plan locks you to a specific instance family, but Compute Savings Plans provide broader flexibility across families and services.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because Spot Instances are designed for fault-tolerant, interruptible workloads and can be terminated with a 2-minute notice, making them unsuitable for a continuously running production reporting portal. Option B is wrong because Dedicated Instances are physically isolated at the host hardware level and billed per instance, which does not inherently provide a discount and lacks the instance-family flexibility of a Savings Plan. Option D is wrong because S3 Intelligent-Tiering is a storage class for objects with changing access patterns, not a compute pricing model, and cannot be applied to EC2 instances.

24
MCQeasy

CloudWatch metrics show your EC2 instances have average CPU utilization around 10% with stable performance over several weeks. The application does not require additional headroom right now. What is the most effective cost-optimization action?

A.Right-size the instances to a smaller size that matches the observed utilization
B.Increase the Auto Scaling desired capacity to add more instances
C.Switch to Spot Instances immediately even though interruptions would impact users
D.Disable detailed monitoring to reduce CPU usage from the monitoring agent
AnswerA

Right sizing reduces cost by matching instance capacity to actual demand. If average CPU is consistently low (around 10%) and performance is stable, it strongly indicates overprovisioning. Moving to a smaller instance (or a smaller capability within the same family) typically lowers hourly cost while maintaining sufficient capacity for the workload.

Why this answer

Right-sizing EC2 instances to match observed utilization is the most effective cost-optimization action because the current instances are over-provisioned (average CPU at 10%). By selecting a smaller instance type that aligns with the actual workload, you reduce hourly costs without impacting performance, as the application has stable behavior and no need for headroom.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may think increasing capacity (Option B) or switching to Spot Instances (Option C) is always cost-effective, but they fail to recognize that right-sizing is the foundational first step before scaling or using Spot, especially when current utilization is low and stable.

Why the other options are wrong

B

Increasing Auto Scaling desired capacity adds more instances, which increases cost without addressing the existing over-provisioning. The question states CPU utilization is low and stable, so adding instances would waste resources.

C

Switching to Spot Instances immediately would risk interruptions that impact users, which is unacceptable for a production application requiring stable performance. The question states the application does not require additional headroom, but it does not indicate tolerance for interruptions.

D

Disabling detailed monitoring does not reduce CPU usage from the monitoring agent; it only reduces the frequency of metric data sent to CloudWatch, which has negligible impact on CPU. The question focuses on cost optimization, and detailed monitoring costs extra, but the primary issue is that the instances are over-provisioned, not that monitoring costs are significant.

25
MCQmedium

A company runs a microservices application on Amazon ECS with AWS Fargate. The tasks run continuously, and the company has committed to a 3-year term. The team wants to reduce Fargate compute cost while keeping the same task definitions and architecture. Which action should a solutions architect take?

A.Reduce the task CPU and memory values in the task definition to lower the Fargate rate.
B.Convert the Fargate tasks to EC2 launch type with Spot Instances.
C.Enable Fargate Spot for all tasks to obtain the lowest possible compute rate.
D.Purchase a Compute Savings Plan to cover the Fargate vCPU and memory usage.
AnswerD

Compute Savings Plans apply to AWS Fargate usage as well as EC2 and Lambda, so they reduce the effective rate for Fargate vCPU and memory while preserving the existing task definitions. For a continuous 3-year commitment, this is the direct way to lower Fargate compute cost without changing the architecture.

Why this answer

Compute Savings Plans cover Fargate usage and provide a discount in exchange for a term commitment, so they lower the vCPU and memory rate without changing task definitions or the ECS architecture. Fargate Spot and EC2 Spot introduce interruption risk unsuitable for continuously running services, and resizing task resources changes the workload rather than the pricing model.

Exam trap

The trap here is reaching for Fargate Spot because it advertises the lowest rate, while overlooking that continuously running microservices cannot accept Spot interruptions and that Compute Savings Plans already discount Fargate.

26
MCQhard

A risk simulation workload in private subnets downloads large amounts of data from S3 through a NAT gateway. NAT data processing charges are high. What should the architect use to reduce cost?

A.A larger NAT gateway
B.Gateway VPC endpoint for Amazon S3
C.S3 Object Lambda
D.AWS Shield Advanced
AnswerB

A gateway VPC endpoint for Amazon S3 inserts a prefix-list route into the VPC route table, directing traffic destined for S3 to the AWS network without leaving through a NAT gateway or internet gateway. Gateway endpoints are free—there is no hourly fee and no per-GB data processing charge—so the NAT gateway's per-GB processing fee on these downloads is completely eliminated. This is the only option that directly removes the data processing cost while preserving private connectivity.

Why this answer

A Gateway VPC endpoint for Amazon S3 allows instances in private subnets to access S3 directly via the AWS network, bypassing the NAT gateway entirely. This eliminates NAT data processing charges (per GB) for S3 traffic, which can be significant for large data downloads. The endpoint is free to use and routes traffic through AWS's private backbone, not the internet.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often assume all VPC endpoints incur costs or require NAT gateways, but Gateway endpoints for S3 and DynamoDB are free and specifically designed to eliminate NAT data processing charges for those services.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because a larger NAT gateway would increase, not reduce, costs due to higher hourly charges and data processing fees per GB. Option C is wrong because S3 Object Lambda is a feature for transforming data on the fly during retrieval, not for reducing network costs or bypassing a NAT gateway. Option D is wrong because AWS Shield Advanced is a DDoS protection service that adds cost and does not address NAT gateway data processing charges.

27
MCQhard

Based on the exhibit, the company runs a self-managed RabbitMQ cluster on EC2 for asynchronous work. The queue only needs durable at-least-once delivery, and the application does not require AMQP-specific features such as exchanges, routing keys, or broker plugins. Which change is the best cost-optimization move?

A.Replace RabbitMQ with Amazon SQS Standard and keep the workers unchanged except for the queue client library.
B.Replace RabbitMQ with Amazon MQ for RabbitMQ to keep the same protocol and reduce costs.
C.Increase the RabbitMQ instance size and add a fourth node for higher availability.
D.Move the queue to Amazon DynamoDB and use scans for consumers to detect new messages.
AnswerA

Amazon SQS is a fully managed queue that satisfies durable, at-least-once messaging without requiring broker administration. It removes the EC2 broker fleet, patching, backups, and failover testing, and it reduces outage risk from broker maintenance. Because the workload does not need AMQP-specific features such as exchanges or routing keys, SQS is the most cost-effective and operationally simple replacement.

Why this answer

Amazon SQS Standard provides at-least-once delivery and durable message storage without requiring AMQP-specific features like exchanges or routing keys. Replacing RabbitMQ with SQS eliminates the operational overhead of managing EC2 instances and RabbitMQ clusters, while SQS's pay-per-request pricing is more cost-effective than running EC2 instances 24/7 for a self-managed queue.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates assume Amazon MQ for RabbitMQ is always the cheapest managed option, but SQS is more cost-effective when AMQP-specific features are not required, as it eliminates per-instance costs and leverages a serverless pricing model.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because Amazon MQ for RabbitMQ is a managed broker service that still incurs hourly instance costs, which is typically more expensive than SQS's serverless, pay-per-request model for workloads that don't need AMQP features. Option C is wrong because increasing instance size and adding nodes increases costs without addressing the core cost-optimization goal, and the current setup already meets the requirements. Option D is wrong because DynamoDB is not a queue service; using scans to detect new messages is inefficient, costly (consumes read capacity units), and does not provide at-least-once delivery semantics or message visibility timeouts, leading to potential duplicate processing and higher latency.

28
MCQeasy

A small e-commerce company hosts its website on a single EC2 instance in a public subnet. The site receives low but steady traffic. The company wants to reduce cost and is willing to accept a brief interruption if the instance is terminated. The workload can be restarted automatically. Which EC2 purchasing option should the company use to minimize cost?

A.On-Demand Instances
B.Spot Instances
C.Reserved Instances with a 3-year term and all upfront payment
D.Dedicated Hosts
AnswerB

Spot Instances offer the largest discounts, up to 90% off On-Demand prices, and are ideal for workloads that can tolerate interruption. The company accepts a brief interruption and can restart the instance automatically, which aligns with Spot behavior. For a low-traffic website with steady usage, Spot can significantly reduce cost. Using a Spot Fleet or Auto Scaling group with a diversified allocation strategy improves availability.

Why this answer

Spot Instances provide the deepest discounts and are designed for workloads that can tolerate interruptions. Since the company accepts a brief interruption and can restart automatically, Spot aligns perfectly with the workload characteristics. On-Demand, Reserved Instances, and Dedicated Hosts are either more expensive or require commitments that are unnecessary for this flexible, low-traffic website.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that a steady workload always requires a commitment-based purchase, when interruptible workloads can use Spot for maximum savings.

29
MCQmedium

A team serves static content (JavaScript, CSS, images) from S3 through CloudFront. After a recent release, CloudFront reports a low cache hit ratio and the S3 origin receives a much higher request rate. The site still works, but billing shows higher origin and data transfer costs. Which change is most likely to improve cache hit ratio and reduce origin load?

A.Configure a CloudFront cache policy (or update HTTP cache-control headers) to increase TTLs for versioned static assets and enable compression for text assets.
B.Disable CloudFront access logging so fewer requests are recorded and billing decreases automatically.
C.Set the distribution’s origin to use S3 Transfer Acceleration to reduce the number of requests hitting S3.
D.Force CloudFront to forward query strings to the origin for all static content so the latest versions are always fetched.
AnswerA

CloudFront cache hit ratio improves when objects are cacheable for longer and requests can be served from edge caches. Proper TTLs for versioned assets prevent unnecessary revalidation. Compression reduces payload size for eligible content types, lowering transfer costs.

Why this answer

Increasing TTLs for versioned static assets via a CloudFront cache policy or HTTP Cache-Control headers ensures that CloudFront caches these immutable objects for longer periods, reducing the number of requests forwarded to the S3 origin. Enabling compression for text assets reduces the data transferred from origin to edge, further lowering origin load and costs. This directly addresses the low cache hit ratio and high origin request rate described in the scenario.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may think forwarding query strings (Option D) ensures freshness, but it actually destroys cacheability for static assets, while the real solution is to use versioned filenames and increase TTLs to maximize edge caching.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because disabling CloudFront access logging does not affect cache hit ratio or origin request rate; it only stops the generation of log files, which does not reduce billing for data transfer or origin requests. Option C is wrong because S3 Transfer Acceleration is designed to speed up uploads over long distances by using AWS edge locations, but it does not reduce the number of requests hitting S3; it actually adds a network hop and does not improve cache hit ratio. Option D is wrong because forcing CloudFront to forward query strings to the origin for all static content would bypass the edge cache for every request, drastically reducing the cache hit ratio and increasing origin load, which is the opposite of the desired outcome.

30
Multi-Selectmedium

A marketing site serves versioned JavaScript and CSS files from Amazon S3 through CloudFront. The origin bill is rising because CloudFront keeps fetching the same files too often, and the application never changes a file at the same URL once it is published. Which two changes should you make? Select two.

Select 2 answers
A.Set long-lived Cache-Control headers, such as a high max-age and immutable policy, on the versioned assets.
B.Configure the CloudFront cache policy to avoid forwarding unnecessary query strings, headers, and cookies.
C.Move the static assets to an EC2 web server behind an Application Load Balancer.
D.Disable CloudFront caching so every request always reaches the origin.
E.Add more viewer-facing headers to the cache key so each browser variation gets a unique cached object.
AnswersA, B

Versioned assets are ideal for long cache lifetimes because their URLs change when the content changes. Strong Cache-Control headers let CloudFront serve more requests from edge locations instead of repeatedly fetching the same files from S3.

Why this answer

Setting long-lived Cache-Control headers (e.g., `max-age=31536000` and `immutable`) on versioned assets tells CloudFront and browsers to cache the files aggressively. Since the application never changes a file at the same URL, this eliminates redundant origin fetches, directly reducing the origin bill.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may think disabling caching (Option D) or adding more cache key variations (Option E) will improve performance, but both increase origin load and costs, while the correct approach is to leverage versioned URLs with aggressive caching headers.

Why the other options are wrong

C

Moving assets to EC2 behind an ALB increases cost and complexity without addressing the root cause of excessive origin fetches; CloudFront already caches from S3, and the issue is cache hit ratio, not origin type.

D

Disabling CloudFront caching would force every request to go to the S3 origin, increasing origin load and costs, which is the opposite of the goal to reduce origin fetches.

E

Adding more viewer-facing headers to the cache key increases cache fragmentation, reducing cache hit ratio and causing more origin fetches, which is the opposite of the desired outcome.

31
MCQmedium

A retail company runs a stateless web tier on a fleet of On-Demand EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. Traffic is steady and predictable throughout the year, and the team has committed to running this exact instance family and Region for at least the next three years. Leadership wants to reduce compute cost as much as possible while keeping the ability to change instance size within the same family. Which purchasing option should the solutions architect recommend?

A.Spot Instances with a capacity-optimized allocation strategy
B.A 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan with the All Upfront payment option
C.A 3-year Standard Reserved Instance for a specific instance size
D.A 3-year Compute Savings Plan with the No Upfront payment option
AnswerB

Because the workload is steady, stateless, and committed to a single instance family in a single Region for three years, an EC2 Instance Savings Plan gives the deepest discount of any commitment-based option. Paying All Upfront maximizes the discount further, and the plan still allows changing instance size within the same family, so operational flexibility is preserved.

Why this answer

The workload is steady, long-lived, and already pinned to one instance family and Region, which is exactly the profile that EC2 Instance Savings Plans reward most heavily. Committing for three years with All Upfront yields the maximum discount, and the plan continues to allow size changes within the family, satisfying the flexibility requirement that rules out a size-locked reservation.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that the most flexible commitment always produces the lowest bill, when a narrower commitment to a known family and Region actually earns a deeper discount.

32
MCQhard

A financial analytics team runs a nightly Monte Carlo simulation on a cluster of Amazon EC2 instances. The simulation writes checkpoint files to an Amazon EBS volume, and the job can be safely restarted from the last checkpoint if interrupted. The team needs the lowest possible compute cost and can tolerate interruptions. The job must run every night and finish within a 6-hour window. Which solution meets these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

A.Use On-Demand EC2 instances with a placement group for low-latency networking.
B.Use Dedicated Hosts to ensure physical isolation for the simulation.
C.Purchase a 1-year Standard Reserved Instance for each instance in the cluster.
D.Use Spot Instances with a persistent request and checkpointing to EBS.
AnswerD

Spot Instances offer up to 90% discounts compared to On-Demand and are ideal for fault-tolerant, interruptible workloads like this simulation. Checkpointing to EBS allows the job to resume after a Spot interruption. A persistent Spot request maintains the desired capacity, helping the job finish within the nightly window while minimizing compute cost.

Why this answer

Spot Instances are the most cost-effective choice for fault-tolerant, interruptible workloads, offering steep discounts over On-Demand. Because the simulation can resume from checkpoints, Spot interruptions are acceptable. A persistent Spot request helps maintain capacity to complete the job within the nightly window, while checkpointing to EBS preserves progress.

Other purchasing options either cost more or do not suit the interruptible pattern.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that Reserved Instances are always the cheapest option for recurring workloads, ignoring that the workload is not running 24/7 and can tolerate interruptions.

33
MCQeasy

An application serves static images through Amazon CloudFront. The team observes higher-than-expected origin fetches, which increases origin bandwidth costs. Which change most directly improves CloudFront cache reuse to reduce origin requests for the static content?

A.Set appropriate Cache-Control headers (or origin cache settings) so CloudFront caches responses longer
B.Disable caching for the distribution so every request goes back to the origin
C.Configure CloudFront to forward all request headers and query strings to the origin
D.Move the S3 bucket to a different AWS Region, without changing CloudFront caching behavior
AnswerA

Setting appropriate Cache-Control headers on the origin instructs CloudFront's edge locations to serve static images for a longer period without requesting them from S3. A longer TTL, such as a max-age of one year for immutable assets, increases the cache hit ratio and dramatically reduces the number of origin fetches. This directly lowers S3 request costs and reduces latency for end users.

Why this answer

Setting appropriate Cache-Control headers (e.g., max-age or s-maxage) or configuring origin cache settings tells CloudFront how long to keep objects in its edge cache before revalidating with the origin. By extending the cache duration, CloudFront serves more requests from its cache, reducing the number of origin fetches and lowering bandwidth costs.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may think forwarding all headers or query strings improves caching, but in reality it fragments the cache and increases origin requests, while disabling caching or moving the bucket does not address the root cause of low cache reuse.

Why the other options are wrong

B

Disabling caching defeats the purpose of reducing origin fetches; it forces every request to the origin, increasing bandwidth costs and origin load.

C

Forwarding all request headers and query strings to the origin causes CloudFront to treat each unique combination as a separate cache object, reducing cache hit ratio and increasing origin fetches.

D

Moving the S3 bucket to a different AWS Region does not change CloudFront's caching behavior or reduce origin fetches. CloudFront caches content at edge locations regardless of the origin region, so this action has no impact on cache hit ratio.

34
MCQeasy

Your team runs a batch processing workload on EC2 that can tolerate interruptions. If an instance is terminated, the job can restart from checkpoints. To reduce compute costs, what is the most cost-optimized approach?

A.Use EC2 Spot Instances for the batch workers
B.Use Dedicated Hosts to ensure capacity for the cheapest instance
C.Use On-Demand instances and schedule extra runs to offset interruptions
D.Use Reserved Instances only, because they eliminate instance termination events
AnswerA

Spot provides significantly lower pricing than On-Demand for interruptible workloads. Because the workload can restart from checkpoints, termination interruptions are acceptable and the application can recover efficiently, meeting both correctness and throughput requirements at a lower cost.

Why this answer

Spot Instances are ideal for fault-tolerant, interruption-tolerant batch workloads because they offer significant cost savings (up to 90% compared to On-Demand) while allowing the job to resume from checkpoints if terminated. This aligns perfectly with the requirement to reduce compute costs without compromising the ability to restart interrupted jobs.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse cost optimization with reliability, assuming that On-Demand or Reserved Instances are always safer, but the question explicitly states the workload can tolerate interruptions, making Spot the clear cost-optimized choice.

Why the other options are wrong

B

Dedicated Hosts are used for licensing or compliance requirements, not for cost optimization. They are more expensive than Spot Instances and do not reduce compute costs for fault-tolerant batch workloads.

C

On-Demand instances are more expensive than Spot Instances, and scheduling extra runs to offset interruptions increases costs further, making this approach less cost-optimized than using Spot Instances for a fault-tolerant workload.

D

Reserved Instances do not eliminate termination events; they only offer a discount for committing to a 1- or 3-year term. The workload is interruption-tolerant, so paying for Reserved Instances is unnecessary and more expensive than Spot Instances.

35
MCQmedium

A marketing site stores logs in S3. Logs are queried for 30 days, rarely accessed for one year, and then retained for compliance. What should reduce storage cost? The architecture review board prefers a managed AWS-native control.

A.S3 lifecycle policy that transitions objects to lower-cost storage classes over time
B.Keep all logs in S3 Standard indefinitely
C.Use EBS snapshots for the logs
D.Move all logs immediately to S3 Glacier Deep Archive
AnswerA

An S3 Lifecycle policy can automate age-based transitions from S3 Standard to S3 Standard-IA and then to Glacier classes, aligning storage costs with the 30-day query pattern. Because log files are queried most heavily when new and rarely when old, transitioning older objects to lower-cost storage maintains S3 API access while reducing spend. Lifecycle rules are the recommended mechanism for this optimization, with no manual intervention or infrastructure changes.

Why this answer

An S3 Lifecycle policy is a managed AWS-native feature that automatically transitions objects to lower-cost storage classes (e.g., S3 Standard-IA after 30 days, S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval or S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval after one year) based on age, reducing storage costs while maintaining compliance. This aligns with the access pattern: frequent queries for 30 days, rare access for a year, then long-term retention. It avoids manual intervention and optimizes cost without sacrificing availability or retrieval needs.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may choose Option D (immediate move to Glacier Deep Archive) thinking it maximizes cost savings, but they overlook the 30-day query requirement, which necessitates a storage class that supports frequent access (like S3 Standard-IA) before transitioning to archival storage.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because keeping all logs in S3 Standard indefinitely incurs the highest per-GB storage cost, ignoring the significant savings from transitioning to lower-cost tiers for data that is rarely accessed after 30 days. Option C is wrong because EBS snapshots are designed for block-level backups of EC2 instances, not for storing log files from S3; they are not a native S3 solution, incur additional costs for snapshot storage and data transfer, and violate the architecture review board's preference for a managed AWS-native control. Option D is wrong because moving all logs immediately to S3 Glacier Deep Archive (which has retrieval times of 12+ hours and high retrieval costs) would prevent the 30-day querying requirement, as the data would be inaccessible for frequent queries without significant delay and expense.

36
MCQhard

A company runs a microservices application on Amazon ECS with AWS Fargate. The application experiences variable traffic throughout the day, with peak hours during business hours and minimal traffic at night. The company wants to optimize costs without affecting performance. Which action should they take?

A.Purchase Reserved Instances for Fargate tasks.
B.Configure ECS Service Auto Scaling to adjust the number of tasks based on demand.
C.Migrate the application to Amazon EC2 instances with Spot Instances.
D.Use a larger Fargate task size to reduce the number of tasks.
AnswerB

ECS Service Auto Scaling automatically adjusts the desired count of tasks in a service based on metrics such as CPU utilization or request count. By scaling out during peak hours and scaling in during low-traffic periods, the company pays only for the resources needed, optimizing costs. This directly addresses the variable traffic pattern without manual intervention and maintains performance.

Why this answer

ECS Service Auto Scaling dynamically adjusts task count based on demand, ensuring the application scales with traffic while minimizing costs during idle periods. This is the most direct and effective cost optimization for variable workloads on Fargate. Other options either do not apply to Fargate or do not provide automatic elasticity, risking higher costs or performance issues.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that purchasing Reserved Instances is a universal cost-saving measure, but Fargate does not offer Reserved Instances; it uses Savings Plans instead.

37
MCQhard

A risk simulation workload generates analytics files that are accessed unpredictably. Some files become hot again months later. The team wants automatic storage cost optimisation without retrieval delays. What should be used? The design must avoid adding custom operational scripts.

A.Manual monthly review and object copying
B.S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval for all files
C.S3 Intelligent-Tiering
D.EFS One Zone for analytics files
AnswerC

S3 Intelligent-Tiering monitors access patterns and automatically moves objects between frequent and infrequent access tiers, with no retrieval fees or delays. This satisfies the stem's unpredictable-access and no-custom-scripts constraints, unlike lifecycle policies that require manual rule design.

Why this answer

S3 Intelligent-Tiering automatically moves objects between access tiers (frequent, infrequent, and archive instant access) based on changing access patterns, with no retrieval delays for hot objects and no operational overhead. This matches the unpredictable access pattern where files become hot again months later, as Intelligent-Tiering monitors access at the object level and adjusts storage class without manual intervention or custom scripts.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may choose S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval because it is cheaper for cold data, but they overlook the 'no retrieval delays' requirement, as Glacier Flexible Retrieval has a retrieval time of minutes to hours, making it unsuitable for files that become hot again unpredictably.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because manual monthly review and object copying introduces operational overhead and potential retrieval delays, violating the requirement to avoid custom operational scripts and automatic cost optimisation. Option B is wrong because S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval has retrieval delays (minutes to hours) for files that become hot again, which violates the 'no retrieval delays' requirement. Option D is wrong because EFS One Zone is a file system, not an object storage service, and does not provide automatic storage class tiering based on access patterns; it also incurs costs for all data regardless of access frequency.

38
MCQmedium

A team runs an EC2-based API on a single Auto Scaling group (ASG). Over the last month, they observed: - Average CPU utilization is ~15%. - p95 latency is stable and within the performance target. - The attached EBS volumes are gp3, provisioned with high baseline IOPS/throughput “just to be safe,” but CloudWatch shows consistently low utilization of those provisioned IOPS/throughput limits. They want to reduce monthly cost while maintaining current performance. Which action is the best cost-optimized choice?

A.Stop resizing EBS and only scale out the ASG during peak traffic, because changing EBS performance settings risks latency spikes.
B.Right-size both the compute and the gp3 volumes: reduce the EC2 instance size (via the ASG launch template/desired capacity configuration) and update gp3 IOPS/throughput settings to match observed utilization while keeping p95 latency targets.
C.Switch the instances to EC2 Spot immediately, because Spot always lowers costs without adding operational risk or affecting performance.
D.Move the workload to a larger instance class and keep the gp3 settings unchanged to avoid operational tuning work.
AnswerB

The metrics indicate headroom that is not being used (low CPU, stable latency, and low gp3 utilization). The most direct cost optimization is to reduce overprovisioned spend by right-sizing the instance type and tuning gp3 IOPS/throughput to match actual demand. Because performance and latency are already stable, these changes are the most likely to reduce cost without degrading performance.

Why this answer

The workload is over-provisioned in both compute and storage. Average CPU is only 15%, so a smaller instance size can handle the load without affecting p95 latency. The gp3 volumes have high baseline IOPS/throughput that are never used, so reducing them to match actual utilization directly lowers costs without performance risk.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates assume EBS performance settings are fixed or risky to change, or that scaling out the ASG is always the best cost optimization, when in fact gp3 allows flexible, no-downtime IOPS/throughput adjustments and the real savings come from matching provisioned resources to actual utilization.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because stopping EBS resizing and only scaling out the ASG during peak traffic ignores the clear over-provisioning of gp3 IOPS/throughput, which is a direct source of unnecessary cost; changing gp3 settings (downward) does not risk latency spikes if you stay above the observed utilization. Option C is wrong because switching to Spot instances introduces the risk of interruption (Spot can be reclaimed with a 2-minute warning), which could cause API latency spikes or failures if the workload is not designed for Spot termination handling; the statement that Spot always lowers costs without operational risk is false. Option D is wrong because moving to a larger instance class would increase compute cost without addressing the over-provisioned gp3 volumes, and the current performance is already meeting targets, so larger instances are unnecessary.

39
MCQeasy

A media company runs a batch job that processes image thumbnails. The job can be restarted from checkpoints and does not have user-facing SLAs. The batch capacity can tolerate interruptions. Which EC2 purchasing option is the best cost optimization choice?

A.Use On-Demand Instances because interruptions are not allowed for production workloads.
B.Use EC2 Spot Instances, accepting the possibility of interruptions and using checkpoints to resume.
C.Purchase Reserved Instances because they provide a discount regardless of the workload timing.
D.Buy Savings Plans because they guarantee capacity and remove the risk of interruptions entirely.
AnswerB

EC2 Spot Instances offer spare compute capacity at discounts of up to 90% compared to On-Demand. Although AWS can reclaim capacity with a two-minute interruption notice, the thumbnail batch can be made resilient by checkpointing progress to Amazon S3 or Amazon EFS and resuming from the last completed step. Because image processing is idempotent and time-flexible, this provides the lowest cost without losing completed work.

Why this answer

Spot Instances offer significant cost savings (up to 90% compared to On-Demand) and are ideal for fault-tolerant, stateless, or checkpointable workloads. Since the batch job can restart from checkpoints and tolerates interruptions, Spot Instances provide the best cost optimization without compromising functionality.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often assume Spot Instances are only for non-production or test workloads, but the SAA-C03 exam emphasizes that Spot Instances are suitable for any fault-tolerant or checkpointable production workload, including batch processing, big data, and containerized applications.

Why the other options are wrong

A

The question states the batch job can tolerate interruptions and uses checkpoints, so On-Demand Instances are unnecessary and more expensive than Spot Instances.

D

Savings Plans do not guarantee capacity or remove interruption risk; they offer discounted rates in exchange for a commitment to a consistent amount of compute usage. Spot Instances can still be interrupted under Savings Plans.

40
MCQhard

A financial services firm runs a containerized risk-analysis platform on Amazon EKS. The containers are stateless and the platform runs continuously, but the firm wants a pricing model that reduces compute cost for the steady baseline while still allowing occasional short bursts above the baseline. Which combination of actions best achieves this?

A.Purchase a Convertible Reserved Instance for peak capacity and let it automatically cover bursts.
B.Purchase a Standard Reserved Instance sized to peak capacity for the entire platform.
C.Purchase a Compute Savings Plan sized to the steady baseline and run any burst capacity as On-Demand.
D.Run the entire platform on Spot Instances to maximize the discount.
AnswerC

A Compute Savings Plan covers the predictable baseline at a discounted rate across EC2, Fargate, and Lambda, which suits a continuously running stateless container platform. Bursts above the committed hourly spend are simply billed at On-Demand rates, so the architecture absorbs short spikes without overcommitting. This balances savings with the flexibility the platform needs.

Why this answer

Matching a Compute Savings Plan to the steady baseline discounts the always-on portion of the container platform while letting short bursts run at On-Demand rates keeps costs aligned with actual usage. This avoids paying for peak capacity continuously, which is what reserving to peak would do. Spot capacity is cheaper but too unreliable for a production platform that must remain available.

Exam trap

The trap here is sizing a commitment to peak load instead of the steady baseline, which overpays for capacity that is idle most of the time.

41
MCQmedium

A development team expects their EC2 utilization to average about 40% of capacity across the next year. They want to lower costs but need flexibility to change instance families and sizes as requirements evolve (for example, moving from compute-optimized to memory-optimized instances). Which AWS purchasing commitment best meets the goal of reducing cost while keeping flexibility?

A.Compute Savings Plans, sized to the expected average usage, because they provide savings across instance families and usage types.
B.All Upfront EC2 Instance Reserved Instances for a single instance family to maximize discount.
C.Spot Instances for the entire workload so they can avoid commitments entirely.
D.On-Demand Instances with increased Auto Scaling to match the peak month only.
AnswerA

Compute Savings Plans provide a discount for a consistent amount of EC2 (and related covered usage) in a region while allowing flexibility to change instance families and sizes within the covered scope. Because the team’s requirements may evolve and they primarily need to manage average utilization (40% baseline), Compute Savings Plans match both the cost-reduction goal and the flexibility requirement better than instance-specific commitments.

Why this answer

Compute Savings Plans offer the best balance of cost reduction and flexibility for this scenario. They provide up to 66% savings in exchange for a commitment to a consistent amount of compute usage (measured in $/hour), but unlike Reserved Instances, they automatically apply to any EC2 instance family, size, OS, or region (within a given AWS region). This allows the team to switch from compute-optimized to memory-optimized instances as needs evolve without losing the discount, directly meeting the requirement for flexibility while lowering costs.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often confuse Reserved Instances (which lock to a specific instance family) with Savings Plans (which offer cross-family flexibility), leading them to choose Option B for the higher discount without considering the flexibility requirement.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because All Upfront EC2 Instance Reserved Instances lock the team into a single instance family (e.g., C5) and size, which eliminates the flexibility to change instance families as requirements evolve. Option C is wrong because Spot Instances can be terminated by AWS with only a 2-minute warning if capacity is reclaimed, making them unsuitable for a steady-state workload that expects 40% average utilization across the year; they also do not provide a guaranteed cost commitment. Option D is wrong because On-Demand Instances with increased Auto Scaling to match the peak month only does not reduce costs for the average 40% utilization; it actually increases costs by paying full On-Demand rates for all usage, and Auto Scaling alone does not provide a discount.

42
MCQhard

A batch analytics job currently uses two NAT gateways in each of three Availability Zones, but only one private subnet per AZ needs outbound internet access. What should the architect review first? The architecture review board prefers a managed AWS-native control.

A.Replacing every NAT gateway with an internet gateway attached to private subnets
B.Whether one NAT gateway per AZ is sufficient for the required private subnets
C.Disabling route tables
D.Moving all workloads to public subnets
AnswerB

NAT gateways are zonal resources, and AWS best practice is to deploy one per Availability Zone for high availability; multiple NAT gateways in the same AZ offer no added resilience because an AZ failure takes them all down. Before optimizing cost, verify whether each private subnet in each AZ actually needs outbound NAT capacity. If batch workloads run primarily in one AZ or can tolerate reduced availability, a single NAT gateway may be sufficient, but cross-AZ traffic from other AZs will incur inter-AZ data transfer charges in addition to the NAT gateway hourly and per-GB processing costs.

Why this answer

The architecture currently uses two NAT gateways per AZ, but only one private subnet per AZ requires outbound internet access. Since a single NAT gateway in an AZ can serve all private subnets in that AZ via the route table, the first step is to verify whether one NAT gateway per AZ is sufficient for the required throughput and availability. This aligns with cost optimization by eliminating unnecessary NAT gateway hourly charges and data processing fees.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates assume more NAT gateways automatically mean better availability or performance, overlooking that a single NAT gateway per AZ is often sufficient and that cost optimization should be the first review priority when multiple gateways are deployed per AZ.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because an internet gateway (IGW) cannot be attached to private subnets; IGWs are used for public subnets and direct inbound/outbound internet access, not for outbound-only access from private subnets. Option C is wrong because disabling route tables would break all network connectivity, not just outbound internet access, and is not a valid optimization technique. Option D is wrong because moving all workloads to public subnets would expose them directly to the internet, violating security best practices and the requirement for a managed AWS-native control.

43
MCQmedium

A company runs a real-time bidding platform on Amazon EC2 instances that must respond within milliseconds. The workload is highly variable, with unpredictable spikes during business hours. The company wants to minimize costs while ensuring the application always has enough capacity to handle sudden traffic surges. Which pricing model should they use?

A.Use a Savings Plan with a 3-year term to cover all compute usage.
B.Purchase a 1-year All Upfront Reserved Instance for the baseline capacity and use Spot Instances for spikes.
C.Use On-Demand Instances with an Auto Scaling group.
D.Use Dedicated Hosts to ensure performance and reduce costs.
AnswerC

On-Demand Instances provide the flexibility to scale up and down without long-term commitment, matching the unpredictable spikes. An Auto Scaling group automatically adjusts capacity to maintain performance. While Spot Instances could be cheaper, they risk interruption, which is unacceptable for a latency-sensitive bidding platform. Savings Plans or Reserved Instances would not provide the needed elasticity for unpredictable surges and could lead to overprovisioning or insufficient capacity.

Why this answer

For unpredictable, latency-sensitive workloads, On-Demand Instances combined with Auto Scaling provide the necessary elasticity and cost control. You pay only for what you use, and Auto Scaling ensures capacity matches demand. Reserved or Savings Plans are better for steady-state usage, while Spot Instances introduce interruption risk.

Dedicated Hosts are cost-prohibitive and inflexible for this scenario.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that any commitment-based discount (Reserved Instances, Savings Plans) is always cheaper, but for highly variable demand, the flexibility of On-Demand with Auto Scaling often results in lower overall cost and better performance.

44
MCQmedium

A company has a steady-state workload running on Amazon EC2 instances that must run 24/7 for the next 3 years. The workload uses a consistent instance family and size across multiple Availability Zones. The company wants to achieve the maximum possible discount and is willing to make an upfront payment. Which purchasing option should a solutions architect recommend?

A.On-Demand Instances
B.Convertible Reserved Instances (3-year, All Upfront)
C.Compute Savings Plans (3-year, All Upfront)
D.Standard Reserved Instances (3-year, All Upfront)
AnswerD

Standard Reserved Instances offer the highest discount among Reserved Instance types, especially with a 3-year All Upfront commitment. Because the workload is steady, uses a consistent instance family and size, and runs across multiple AZs, Standard RIs are a perfect fit. They provide a capacity reservation and significant cost savings compared to On-Demand, and the All Upfront payment maximizes the discount.

Why this answer

Standard Reserved Instances provide the largest discount for steady-state workloads with a known instance family and size, especially with a 3-year All Upfront payment. They also offer a capacity reservation within an Availability Zone. Convertible RIs and Compute Savings Plans offer flexibility at the cost of a lower discount.

On-Demand is the most expensive. Thus, Standard RIs meet the requirement for maximum discount.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that Convertible Reserved Instances or Savings Plans always give the best discount, when in fact Standard RIs offer the highest discount for fixed, predictable workloads.

45
MCQmedium

A company runs a batch processing job on Amazon EC2 that takes about 4 hours to complete. The job can be interrupted and resumed from checkpoints. The company wants to minimize compute costs. Which pricing model is MOST cost-effective?

A.On-Demand Instances
B.Dedicated Hosts
C.Reserved Instances
D.Spot Instances
AnswerD

Spot Instances offer significant discounts (up to 90% off On-Demand) and are ideal for fault-tolerant, flexible workloads like batch processing that can checkpoint and resume. The job can handle interruptions, so the risk of Spot termination is acceptable. This pricing model minimizes compute costs while meeting the job's requirements.

Why this answer

Spot Instances are the most cost-effective for batch jobs that can be interrupted and resumed. They offer deep discounts compared to On-Demand and do not require long-term commitments like Reserved Instances. Since the job checkpoints, interruptions are manageable.

This aligns with the AWS Well-Architected Framework's cost optimization pillar.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that Reserved Instances always provide the best savings, but they require a commitment and are not ideal for interruptible or non-continuous workloads where Spot Instances can deliver greater savings without commitment.

46
MCQmedium

A log archive serves infrequently accessed user documents that must be available immediately when requested. Which S3 storage class is likely the best cost fit?

A.Instance store volumes
B.S3 Standard-IA or S3 One Zone-IA depending on resilience requirements
C.S3 Standard for all objects
D.S3 Glacier Deep Archive
AnswerB

S3 Standard-IA and One Zone-IA both provide immediate millisecond retrieval, satisfying the instant-access constraint, while their lower storage price suits infrequent access. Standard-IA replicates across three Availability Zones; One Zone-IA stores data in a single AZ, so choose it only when reduced resilience is acceptable.

Why this answer

S3 Standard-IA or S3 One Zone-IA is the best cost fit because the workload involves infrequently accessed data that requires immediate retrieval (millisecond latency). Standard-IA offers lower storage cost than S3 Standard while maintaining high durability and low-latency access, and One Zone-IA provides even lower cost for data that can tolerate a single-AZ failure. Both classes meet the 'available immediately' requirement, unlike Glacier tiers which have retrieval delays.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often confuse 'infrequently accessed' with 'archival' and choose Glacier Deep Archive, forgetting that the requirement for immediate availability eliminates any Glacier tier due to its retrieval delays.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because instance store volumes are ephemeral block storage attached to EC2 instances, not an S3 storage class, and they lose data on instance stop/termination, making them unsuitable for durable log archives. Option C is wrong because S3 Standard is designed for frequently accessed data with higher storage cost per GB, leading to unnecessary expense for infrequently accessed logs. Option D is wrong because S3 Glacier Deep Archive has retrieval times of 12–48 hours, which violates the 'available immediately' requirement.

47
MCQeasy

A company stores user uploads in an S3 bucket. Objects are accessed rarely after upload, but when an object is accessed, it must be retrievable quickly (minutes to a few hours). Objects must be retained for at least 18 months. The team wants to reduce storage cost while meeting these requirements. Which lifecycle configuration best fits these requirements?

A.Keep all objects in S3 Standard permanently to avoid lifecycle transition fees.
B.After 30 days, transition objects to S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval, and after 18 months, expire (delete) the objects.
C.After 30 days, transition objects to S3 Intelligent-Tiering, and set expiration to 12 months.
D.After 30 days, transition objects to S3 Glacier Deep Archive, and set expiration to 18 months.
AnswerB

The prompt requires (1) cost reduction for data that becomes infrequently accessed and (2) quick retrieval when accessed again, and (3) a minimum retention of at least 18 months. Glacier Instant Retrieval is intended for data that is accessed occasionally and needs fast retrieval. Transitioning after 30 days moves the long-term, rarely accessed portion of the data to a cheaper class, while expiring at 18 months satisfies the explicit retention requirement (the objects remain for at least 18 months).

Why this answer

It transitions objects to S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval after 30 days, which provides millisecond retrieval for rarely accessed data, meeting the quick retrieval requirement. The 18-month expiration ensures compliance with the retention policy while minimizing storage costs compared to keeping data in S3 Standard.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse retrieval time requirements: S3 Glacier Deep Archive is cheaper but has retrieval times of hours, not minutes, and S3 Intelligent-Tiering is for unpredictable access, not for data that is rarely accessed after upload.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because keeping all objects in S3 Standard permanently ignores the cost-saving opportunity of lifecycle transitions; S3 Standard is more expensive for rarely accessed data, and there are no lifecycle transition fees for moving to colder storage classes. Option C is wrong because S3 Intelligent-Tiering is designed for unpredictable access patterns, not for data that is rarely accessed after upload, and setting expiration to 12 months violates the 18-month retention requirement. Option D is wrong because S3 Glacier Deep Archive has retrieval times of 12-48 hours, which does not meet the requirement of retrievable within minutes to a few hours.

48
MCQmedium

A dev sandbox runs for several hours each night and can be interrupted and restarted. Which EC2 purchasing option should minimize cost?

A.On-Demand Instances only
B.Spot Instances
C.Dedicated Hosts
D.Provisioned IOPS volumes
AnswerB

Spot Instances offer spare AWS compute capacity at discounts of up to 90% compared to On-Demand, and they can be reclaimed by AWS with a two-minute warning when capacity is needed elsewhere. Because the dev sandbox runs only at night and can be interrupted without negative impact, it is an ideal fit for Spot. The main risk is interruption, but that is acceptable for this use case.

Why this answer

Spot Instances can be interrupted and restarted, making them ideal for fault-tolerant workloads like a nightly dev sandbox. They offer significant cost savings (up to 90% off On-Demand) because they use spare AWS EC2 capacity, which aligns perfectly with the scenario's tolerance for interruption.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates confuse 'interruptible' with 'unreliable' and choose On-Demand for stability, missing that Spot Instances are explicitly designed for fault-tolerant, non-critical workloads like a nightly dev sandbox.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because On-Demand Instances are billed per second with no interruption, which is unnecessary for a workload that can be stopped and resumed, leading to higher costs. Option C is wrong because Dedicated Hosts provide physical servers for licensing or compliance needs, which is overkill and expensive for a simple dev sandbox. Option D is wrong because Provisioned IOPS volumes are a storage option (EBS), not an EC2 purchasing option, and do not directly affect compute cost optimization.

49
MCQmedium

A test environment runs on x86 EC2 instances and uses open-source software with no architecture-specific licensing restriction. What should be evaluated to reduce compute cost?

A.Cross-Region data replication for all data
B.AWS Graviton-based instances after performance testing
C.io2 Block Express volumes for all instances
D.Dedicated Hosts by default
AnswerB

AWS Graviton-based instances, such as m6g, c6g, and r6g, are built on the Arm architecture and typically offer up to 20% better price-performance than comparable x86 instances. The catch is that your application and its dependencies must be compiled or runnable on Arm, so performance testing is essential to confirm compatibility and measure actual throughput, latency, and cost-per-request before migrating the test environment.

Why this answer

AWS Graviton-based instances (e.g., M6g, C6g) use Arm-based custom AWS silicon, offering up to 40% better price-performance compared to comparable x86 instances for many workloads. Since the test environment runs open-source software with no architecture-specific licensing restrictions, migrating to Graviton after performance testing can significantly reduce compute costs without compatibility issues.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may assume all cost optimization involves reducing instance size or using Spot Instances, but the question specifically tests knowledge of architecture-specific cost savings with Graviton when no licensing restrictions exist.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because cross-Region data replication increases data transfer and storage costs, not compute costs, and is a data durability/disaster recovery feature, not a cost optimization for compute. Option C is wrong because io2 Block Express volumes are high-performance, high-cost SSD volumes designed for latency-sensitive workloads, not a compute cost reduction strategy; they would increase storage costs unnecessarily for a test environment. Option D is wrong because Dedicated Hosts incur additional per-host charges and are intended for licensing or compliance requirements (e.g., Windows Server with dedicated licensing), not for general compute cost reduction; using them by default would increase costs.

50
MCQmedium

A retail company runs an e-commerce platform on a fleet of Amazon EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. Traffic follows a predictable pattern: high during business hours and very low overnight. The operations team wants to reduce EC2 costs without affecting availability during peak hours. The instances currently run continuously and are managed by an Auto Scaling group with a minimum capacity of 4 and a maximum of 20. Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

A.Enable detailed monitoring on all instances and create a target tracking scaling policy based on CPU utilization.
B.Purchase 4 Standard Reserved Instances for a 3-year term and let the Auto Scaling group launch On-Demand instances beyond that baseline.
C.Replace the Auto Scaling group with a larger number of smaller instances to improve granularity of scaling.
D.Configure a scheduled scaling action on the Auto Scaling group to reduce the desired capacity during off-peak hours and increase it before peak hours.
AnswerD

Scheduled scaling lets you set the desired capacity based on a known schedule, so the Auto Scaling group can scale down when traffic is predictably low and scale up before the peak. This directly matches capacity to demand and avoids paying for idle instances during off-peak hours, making it the most cost-effective option for a predictable pattern.

Why this answer

For workloads with a predictable daily or weekly traffic pattern, scheduled scaling is the most direct way to align capacity with demand. It reduces the number of running instances during known low-traffic periods without waiting for a metric-based policy to react. Reserved Instances or target tracking do not eliminate the cost of idle overnight capacity in this scenario.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that a discount purchasing option or a reactive scaling policy will automatically reduce cost, when the real issue is that the fleet keeps running at full baseline capacity during predictably low-traffic hours.

51
MCQhard

A company runs an internal analytics application on Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL. The database is used heavily from 08:00 to 18:00 on weekdays, but outside those hours it receives almost no queries. The company must keep the database available at all times and cannot tolerate downtime during business hours. The team wants to reduce the cost of running this database. Which approach is the MOST cost-effective while meeting the availability requirement?

A.Convert the DB instance to a Multi-AZ deployment and purchase a Reserved Instance for the primary instance.
B.Enable Aurora Auto Scaling with a reader endpoint and route all read queries to the reader.
C.Stop the DB instance every evening and start it again each weekday morning.
D.Migrate the workload to Aurora Serverless v2 with a minimum capacity that scales down during idle periods.
AnswerD

Aurora Serverless v2 scales capacity in fine-grained increments and can scale down to a low minimum during idle periods while remaining available to accept connections. Because the database is almost unused outside business hours but must stay online, this pay-for-what-you-use capacity model reduces cost more effectively than a fixed-size RDS instance that bills the same rate around the clock.

Why this answer

The workload has a sharp, predictable busy period and long idle windows, yet the database must remain available at all times. Aurora Serverless v2 capacity scales down during idle periods without stopping the database, so the company pays far less during the quiet hours while preserving continuous availability, which is the most cost-effective option that satisfies the constraint.

Exam trap

The trap here is treating any idle period as an opportunity to stop the database, when the requirement for continuous availability rules out stopping and favors a capacity model that scales down while staying online.

52
MCQmedium

A media company runs a nightly batch job that processes video thumbnails. The batch can be interrupted at any time, and workers can resume automatically from checkpoints (a termination does not corrupt progress). The business goal is the lowest possible compute cost, and occasional interruptions are acceptable as long as the job continues automatically. Which approach is most cost-optimized?

A.Run the job on On-Demand EC2 instances to avoid interruptions
B.Use EC2 Spot Instances and implement interruption handling with checkpoint-based restarts
C.Buy Reserved Instances for the entire job window because interruptions are acceptable anyway
D.Use Savings Plans but schedule the job only during business hours to reduce the commit cost
AnswerB

Spot Instances bill at up to a 90% discount versus On-Demand, and the checkpoint-based restart design means a two-minute interruption notice causes no lost work. Since the stem accepts interruptions provided the job resumes automatically, Spot delivers the lowest compute cost without violating any stated constraint.

Why this answer

Spot Instances offer the lowest compute cost (up to 90% discount vs. On-Demand) and the checkpoint-based design ensures that interruptions are handled gracefully without data loss. The job can resume automatically from the last checkpoint, making Spot Instances ideal for fault-tolerant, interruptible batch workloads.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates assume Reserved Instances or Savings Plans are always cheaper for predictable workloads, but they overlook that Spot Instances can be even cheaper and are perfectly suited for fault-tolerant, interruptible batch jobs without any upfront commitment.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because On-Demand instances are significantly more expensive than Spot Instances, and the business explicitly accepts occasional interruptions, so paying a premium for uninterrupted compute is not cost-optimized. Option C is wrong because Reserved Instances require a 1- or 3-year commitment and are designed for steady-state workloads, not for a nightly batch job that can be interrupted; the cost savings are less than Spot and the commitment is unnecessary. Option D is wrong because Savings Plans also require a commitment (1 or 3 years) and scheduling the job only during business hours does not reduce the commit cost; the job runs nightly, so this approach would either waste committed spend or require overprovisioning, making it less cost-effective than Spot.

53
MCQmedium

A data engineering team runs a nightly ETL job on EC2. The job can be checkpointed every 5 minutes and can be retried from the last checkpoint if the instance terminates. The job runtime varies from 2 to 4 hours, and the team has no need for a specific instance type, as long as it completes before 7:00 AM local time. They currently run the job on On-Demand EC2, leading to high monthly compute cost. Which change best reduces cost while maintaining the business deadline?

A.Use Spot Instances for the ETL workload, and configure the job to checkpoint frequently and restart on interruption.
B.Use Reserved Instances with a 1-year term to lower costs, since reservations provide discounts for any usage.
C.Switch to On-Demand but enable Auto Scaling so the job finishes faster during peak hours.
D.Use Spot Instances but disable checkpointing to simplify the application.
AnswerA

Spot Instances cost substantially less than On-Demand, and the five-minute checkpointing means an interruption loses at most five minutes of work. Restarting from the last checkpoint keeps the 2–4 hour job within the 07:00 deadline, unlike uncheckpointed interruption.

Why this answer

Spot Instances offer significant cost savings (up to 90%) compared to On-Demand, and the ETL job's ability to checkpoint every 5 minutes and restart from the last checkpoint makes it resilient to Spot interruptions. This allows the team to meet the 7:00 AM deadline while drastically reducing compute costs, as the job can be retried on new Spot capacity if interrupted.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may overlook the checkpointing requirement and choose Reserved Instances (B) thinking they always reduce costs, or disable checkpointing (D) assuming simplicity is better, without realizing that Spot Instances require fault tolerance to be cost-effective.

Why the other options are wrong

B

Reserved Instances require a 1-year commitment and are cost-effective only for steady-state, predictable workloads. The nightly ETL job runs only 2-4 hours per day, so the discount does not offset the cost of paying for 24/7 reserved capacity, making it more expensive than Spot Instances.

C

Auto Scaling does not reduce cost; it adds more instances, increasing cost. The job already runs within the deadline, so scaling out is unnecessary and more expensive.

D

Disabling checkpointing removes the ability to resume from the last checkpoint on interruption, which is critical for Spot Instances that can be terminated at any time. Without checkpointing, the job would have to restart from scratch, likely missing the 7:00 AM deadline.

54
MCQeasy

A company has a steady, predictable workload that must run continuously (24/7) in a single AWS Region. The team wants the lowest cost option available for this steady usage, but also expects they may choose different EC2 instance families in the future (without re-buying compute discounts). Which AWS purchase option best meets these goals?

A.On-Demand Instances only, because they automatically adjust to future needs
B.Compute Savings Plans, committed for a 1- to 3-year term in the Region
C.Standard Reserved Instances tied to a single instance type and Availability Zone
D.EC2 Spot Instances, because they are always cheaper than savings programs
AnswerB

Compute Savings Plans provide discounted pricing in exchange for committing to a consistent hourly spend (scoped to a Region). They apply to EC2 usage and are flexible enough that you can change EC2 instance families over time while still receiving the Savings Plans discount within the commitment scope.

Why this answer

Compute Savings Plans offer the lowest cost for steady, predictable workloads while providing instance family flexibility within a Region. Unlike Reserved Instances, they automatically apply discounts to any EC2 instance family (and even Fargate/Lambda) in the chosen Region, so the company can switch instance families in the future without losing the discount. A 1- or 3-year commitment yields significant savings (up to 66%) compared to On-Demand, making it the optimal choice for this scenario.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often confuse Reserved Instances (which lock instance family and AZ) with Savings Plans (which offer regional flexibility), leading them to choose Standard Reserved Instances despite the stated requirement for future instance family changes.

Why the other options are wrong

A

On-Demand Instances are the most expensive option for steady, 24/7 workloads, as they lack the discounts of committed-use plans. The question specifically asks for the lowest cost, so On-Demand does not meet that requirement.

C

Standard Reserved Instances lock you into a specific instance type and Availability Zone, which contradicts the requirement to choose different instance families in the future without re-buying compute discounts.

D

Spot Instances can be interrupted with a 2-minute notice, making them unsuitable for a steady, continuous 24/7 workload that must run without interruption.

55
MCQmedium

A company hosts a public-facing static website and a set of downloadable software packages. Users are distributed globally, and the packages are large, so the company wants to reduce data transfer costs and improve download latency. The content changes only when a new release is published, a few times per month. Which solution should a solutions architect recommend?

A.Store the content in Amazon S3 and distribute it through an Amazon CloudFront distribution with a cache policy that sets a long time-to-live.
B.Replicate the S3 bucket to every AWS Region and return Region-specific URLs to users.
C.Move the content to Amazon EFS and mount the file system from EC2 instances in each Region.
D.Serve the website and packages from an Amazon S3 bucket in the primary Region and enable S3 Transfer Acceleration.
AnswerA

CloudFront caches objects at edge locations close to users, which lowers download latency and reduces the volume of data transferred from the S3 origin. Because the content changes only a few times per month, a long cache time-to-live means the vast majority of requests are served from the edge at the lower CloudFront data transfer rate, cutting both latency and cost.

Why this answer

For globally distributed, cacheable static content, a CDN is the standard cost and latency optimization. CloudFront caches objects at edge locations, so most requests are served without touching the S3 origin, and the edge data transfer rate is lower than direct S3 internet transfer. A long time-to-live is appropriate because the content changes only a few times per month.

Exam trap

The trap here is confusing S3 Transfer Acceleration with content delivery; acceleration optimizes the transfer path to a bucket, while a CDN caches content near the user and reduces origin egress.

56
Multi-Selecthard

A solutions architect is optimizing the cost of a serverless data-processing pipeline. The pipeline uses AWS Lambda functions that process messages from an Amazon SQS queue and write results to Amazon DynamoDB. The team observes that Lambda invocations spike unpredictably, DynamoDB is provisioned with high capacity that is often idle, and the SQS queue occasionally accumulates a large backlog. Which two changes will most directly reduce cost while preserving the pipeline's ability to handle bursts? (Choose two.)

Select 2 answers
A.Increase the Lambda function's memory allocation to shorten execution time.
B.Configure the Lambda function's reserved concurrency to a low fixed value to cap scaling.
C.Move the SQS queue to a FIFO queue to improve ordering and throughput.
D.Switch the DynamoDB table from provisioned capacity to on-demand capacity mode.
E.Enable SQS long polling and batch multiple messages per Lambda invocation.
AnswersD, E

On-demand capacity mode charges only for the read and write requests the table actually serves, so idle provisioned capacity no longer incurs cost. Because the pipeline's traffic is unpredictable and bursty, on-demand absorbs spikes without pre-provisioning, directly aligning spend with usage and eliminating charges for capacity that sits unused during quiet periods.

Why this answer

The two most direct cost levers are matching DynamoDB billing to actual traffic by using on-demand capacity, and reducing Lambda invocation count by batching SQS messages with long polling. Together they eliminate idle provisioned capacity and cut per-invocation charges, while both changes preserve the ability to absorb unpredictable bursts without throttling the pipeline.

Exam trap

The trap here is treating Lambda tuning such as memory or reserved concurrency as a cost fix, when the predictable savings come from aligning DynamoDB billing to usage and cutting the number of billed invocations.

57
MCQhard

Based on the exhibit, the company wants to lower CloudWatch and EC2 monitoring costs. Auditors require logs to be retained for 90 days, but operations only uses detailed per-instance metrics during rare troubleshooting events. Which change best reduces recurring cost while preserving the required visibility?

A.Disable CloudWatch Logs entirely and rely on application local files for 90 days.
B.Increase the number of CloudWatch alarms so that metrics are collected less expensively.
C.Set CloudWatch Logs retention to 90 days for all log groups, and switch EC2 monitoring from detailed to basic except during incidents.
D.Export all logs to Amazon S3 immediately and keep detailed monitoring enabled on every instance.
AnswerC

This directly addresses the two visible recurring cost drivers. Applying a 90-day retention policy stops indefinite log storage growth while still meeting the audit requirement. Basic monitoring is sufficient when 1-minute metrics are not required all the time, and detailed monitoring can be enabled selectively during incidents instead of paying for it across all 200 instances continuously.

Why this answer

It directly addresses the two cost drivers: CloudWatch Logs storage costs are minimized by setting a 90-day retention policy (matching the audit requirement), and EC2 detailed monitoring (1-minute metrics) is replaced with basic monitoring (5-minute metrics) during normal operations, with the ability to switch back to detailed only when needed for troubleshooting. This preserves the required log retention and the ability to obtain high-resolution metrics on demand, while eliminating the recurring cost of storing logs indefinitely and paying for detailed monitoring on every instance.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may think increasing alarms or exporting logs to S3 reduces costs, but they fail to recognize that detailed monitoring is a per-instance hourly charge independent of alarms, and that S3 storage and API costs can exceed CloudWatch Logs costs if not managed carefully.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because disabling CloudWatch Logs entirely and relying on application local files violates the auditor's requirement for centralized, durable log retention and makes logs inaccessible if the instance fails or is terminated. Option B is wrong because increasing the number of CloudWatch alarms does not reduce metric collection costs; alarms are billed separately and do not change the underlying cost of detailed monitoring (per-instance per-minute charges). Option D is wrong because exporting logs to S3 immediately does not reduce costs—it adds S3 storage and PUT request costs—and keeping detailed monitoring enabled on every instance continues to incur the higher per-instance monitoring fee.

58
MCQhard

A company runs a containerized API on Amazon ECS with AWS Fargate. Traffic is highly variable: it peaks during business hours and drops to near zero overnight. The team wants to pay only for what they use while keeping the API responsive during peaks. Which approach BEST optimizes cost for this workload?

A.Run the tasks on Fargate Spot capacity and configure the service to scale out on demand.
B.Configure Application Auto Scaling on the ECS service using target tracking on a metric such as average CPU or requests per task, with a minimum task count of one.
C.Migrate the workload to a single large EC2 instance running the containers with a 3-year Reserved Instance.
D.Provision a fixed task count sized for the highest observed peak and leave it running continuously.
AnswerB

Application Auto Scaling with target tracking adjusts the desired task count to match demand, so the service scales out during business-hour peaks and scales in overnight when traffic nears zero. Setting a low minimum keeps a task ready to absorb the first requests, preserving responsiveness. Because Fargate bills per task-second, scaling in directly reduces spend, making this the best cost-and-performance balance.

Why this answer

Variable traffic that peaks in the day and falls to near zero at night is the classic case for elastic horizontal scaling. Application Auto Scaling with target tracking grows and shrinks the ECS task count to follow demand, and because Fargate charges per task-second, scaling in overnight removes the cost of idle capacity. A low minimum keeps the API warm and responsive for the first requests of the day.

Exam trap

The trap here is treating a cheaper capacity type like Fargate Spot as the primary lever, when the workload's need for uninterrupted responsiveness makes demand-based scaling the real cost optimizer.

59
MCQmedium

A company runs a stateless web application on a fleet of EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. The instances are in an Auto Scaling group that scales between 4 and 40 instances, and utilization is highly variable. The company wants to reduce compute cost while keeping the ability to change instance families and Regions over the next three years. Which purchasing strategy should the company use?

A.Purchase a 3-year Standard Reserved Instance for each of the 40 instances.
B.Use Spot Instances for the entire Auto Scaling group and remove the On-Demand capacity.
C.Purchase a Compute Savings Plan with a commitment equal to the steady-state baseline usage.
D.Purchase a 1-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan scoped to the current instance family and Region.
AnswerC

A Compute Savings Plan applies to EC2, Fargate, and Lambda across families, sizes, tenancies, and Regions, so the company can change instance families or Regions without losing the discount. Committing only to the steady-state baseline covers the always-on capacity and leaves burst capacity billed at On-Demand rates.

Why this answer

A Compute Savings Plan discounts eligible compute regardless of family, size, tenancy, or Region, which matches the requirement to change instance families and Regions over three years. Committing only to the steady-state baseline keeps the discount on always-on capacity while variable burst capacity is billed at On-Demand rates, so the company controls cost without sacrificing flexibility.

Exam trap

The trap here is choosing a larger discount from an EC2 Instance Savings Plan, when its family and Region lock would break the requirement to change instance families and Regions.

60
MCQmedium

A test environment stores logs in S3. Logs are queried for 30 days, rarely accessed for one year, and then retained for compliance. What should reduce storage cost?

A.Keep all logs in S3 Standard indefinitely
B.Move all logs immediately to S3 Glacier Deep Archive
C.S3 lifecycle policy that transitions objects to lower-cost storage classes over time
D.Use EBS snapshots for the logs
AnswerC

An S3 lifecycle policy is the correct solution because it lets you automate storage class transitions based on object age: for example, keep logs in S3 Standard for the first 30 days for active queries, then transition them to S3 Standard-IA or S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval for cheaper long-term storage. Lifecycle rules can chain multiple transitions, so you can progressively move objects to even colder classes (e.g., Glacier Flexible Retrieval) after 90 or 180 days. This matches storage cost to actual access patterns while maintaining the ability to retrieve logs when needed, without manual operations or expensive ingestion-time decisions.

Why this answer

An S3 Lifecycle policy automates the transition of objects from S3 Standard (for frequent access) to S3 Standard-IA (infrequent access) after 30 days, then to S3 Glacier Deep Archive (for long-term retention) after one year, minimizing storage costs while maintaining data accessibility as needed.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may choose immediate transition to Glacier Deep Archive (Option B) without considering the 30-day query period, failing to match the lifecycle to the access pattern described in the question.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because keeping all logs in S3 Standard indefinitely incurs the highest storage cost, ignoring the cost savings from transitioning to lower-cost storage classes for data that is rarely accessed or retained for compliance. Option B is wrong because moving all logs immediately to S3 Glacier Deep Archive is impractical for logs queried frequently in the first 30 days, as retrieval times (hours) and costs would be excessive, and it violates the access pattern described. Option D is wrong because EBS snapshots are designed for block-level backups of EC2 instances, not for storing log files; they are more expensive and less suitable for object-based log storage in S3.

61
Multi-Selecthard

A media company runs a 24/7 ingestion API on EC2 behind an Application Load Balancer and a nightly transcoding job that can resume from checkpoints. The API fleet runs at roughly 65 percent CPU all day, while the batch workers sit idle most of the time. The company wants to cut compute cost without risking the API. Which two changes should they make? Select two.

Select 2 answers
A.Purchase a Compute Savings Plan for the always-on API fleet.
B.Move the transcoding workers to EC2 Spot Instances and checkpoint progress.
C.Replace the API fleet with Dedicated Hosts to lock in lower rates.
D.Buy Standard Reserved Instances for the batch workers and keep them running 24/7.
E.Increase the worker Auto Scaling minimum to prevent Spot interruptions.
AnswersA, B

Correct. Compute Savings Plans discount steady usage across EC2 and other compute services without forcing a specific instance family. The API has predictable 24/7 demand, so a commitment fits the usage pattern and lowers cost safely.

Why this answer

Option A is correct because the API fleet is an always-on, steady-state workload running 24/7 at ~65% CPU, which is exactly the profile a Compute Savings Plan discounts (up to 66% off On-Demand) while remaining flexible across instance families, sizes, Regions, and even Fargate/Lambda, so it lowers cost without changing capacity or risking the API. Option B is correct because the transcoding job is fault-tolerant and can resume from checkpoints, making it ideal for EC2 Spot Instances, which offer up to 90% off On-Demand; a Spot interruption only triggers a two-minute warning and the job simply resumes from its last checkpoint. Option C is wrong because Dedicated Hosts are for licensing/compliance or BYOL requirements and are typically more expensive, not a cost-optimization lever for a standard ALB-fronted API.

Option D is wrong because buying Standard RIs and keeping batch workers running 24/7 pays for idle capacity the workload does not need, defeating the cost goal. Option E is wrong because raising the Auto Scaling minimum does not prevent Spot interruptions and would increase cost by keeping more idle workers running.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often confuse Savings Plans with Reserved Instances, or assume Dedicated Hosts are a cost-saving measure, when in fact they are a premium isolation feature; the key is recognizing that Spot Instances are ideal for fault-tolerant, checkpointable batch workloads, while a Compute Savings Plan covers the predictable baseline without locking into a specific instance type.

62
MCQmedium

A company runs a containerized order-processing service on Amazon ECS with the Fargate launch type. The service scales out during business hours and scales down to a small baseline overnight. Usage is expected to remain stable for the next two years, and the team wants to reduce Fargate cost without managing any servers. Which action should the solutions architect take?

A.Enable Fargate Spot for the entire service and remove the On-Demand baseline
B.Purchase a Compute Savings Plan that covers the steady Fargate baseline usage
C.Purchase a 1-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan sized to the nightly baseline
D.Migrate the service to the EC2 launch type and purchase Reserved Instances for the baseline
AnswerB

Compute Savings Plans apply to Fargate vCPU and memory usage as well as to Lambda and EC2, so they discount the steady portion of this service without requiring any server management. Committing to the overnight baseline captures the discount on usage that is certain to occur, while the variable daytime scale-out remains on On-Demand rates.

Why this answer

Compute Savings Plans explicitly cover Fargate vCPU and memory usage, so they reduce cost for a serverless container workload without requiring any infrastructure management. Sizing the commitment to the guaranteed overnight baseline discounts the portion of usage that will certainly occur, while the elastic daytime capacity continues to bill at On-Demand rates without over-committing the company.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that a Fargate workload cannot benefit from any savings plan, when Compute Savings Plans cover Fargate as well as Lambda and EC2.

63
MCQmedium

A marketing site has EC2 instances that are oversized based on CPU, memory, and network utilisation. Which AWS service should identify rightsizing recommendations?

A.AWS Shield
B.AWS Compute Optimizer
C.AWS DataSync
D.AWS Artifact
AnswerB

AWS Compute Optimizer analyses CloudWatch metrics from EC2 instances to generate rightsizing recommendations, flagging over-provisioned CPU, memory and network capacity. It directly satisfies the stem's requirement to identify oversized instances, unlike Trusted Advisor's narrower checks or Cost Explorer's spend-only view.

Why this answer

AWS Compute Optimizer analyzes historical utilization metrics (CPU, memory, network, and storage) from CloudWatch and uses machine learning to identify over-provisioned or under-provisioned EC2 instances. It generates actionable rightsizing recommendations, including instance type changes, to optimize cost and performance. This directly addresses the scenario of oversized EC2 instances.

Exam trap

The trap here is confusing AWS Compute Optimizer with AWS Trusted Advisor, which also provides cost optimization checks but does not offer the same ML-driven, granular rightsizing recommendations for EC2 instances.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because AWS Shield is a managed DDoS protection service, not a resource optimization or rightsizing tool. Option C is wrong because AWS DataSync is a data transfer service for moving large datasets between on-premises storage and AWS, not for analyzing instance utilization or making rightsizing recommendations. Option D is wrong because AWS Artifact is a self-service portal for downloading compliance reports and agreements (e.g., SOC, PCI), not a cost optimization or rightsizing service.

64
Multi-Selecthard

A internal reporting portal has old unattached EBS volumes and many stale snapshots. Which two actions reduce storage cost without affecting running instances? The architecture review board prefers a managed AWS-native control.

Select 2 answers
A.Disable CloudTrail logging
B.Stop all EC2 instances in the account
C.Delete unattached EBS volumes after verifying they are no longer needed
D.Apply snapshot lifecycle policies to expire obsolete snapshots
AnswersC, D

Unattached EBS volumes in an 'available' state continue to incur per-GB-month charges because AWS bills for allocated block storage capacity regardless of whether a volume is attached to an instance. After verifying that each orphaned volume contains no critical data or that its data is already safely backed up, deleting the volume is the direct, effective way to eliminate that recurring cost and is the primary cost optimization in this scenario.

Why this answer

Unattached EBS volumes incur storage costs without providing any benefit to running instances. Deleting them after verification directly reduces costs while having zero impact on running workloads. Option D is correct because snapshot lifecycle policies automate the deletion of obsolete snapshots based on age or count, eliminating manual cleanup and reducing storage costs without affecting running instances.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse stopping instances (which stops billing for instance hours but not for EBS storage) with a cost-saving measure, or think disabling logging reduces storage costs, when the actual savings come from removing orphaned storage resources.

65
MCQhard

Based on the exhibit, the company stores application logs in Amazon S3 for 400 days. The logs are read heavily for the first 30 days, occasionally for the next 90 days, and very rarely after that. Retrieval after day 120 can take up to several hours, but the data must remain available until day 400. Which lifecycle policy is the most cost-effective fit?

A.Keep all logs in S3 Standard for 400 days and enable requester pays to reduce the company's bill.
B.Transition logs to S3 Standard-IA after 30 days, then to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval after 120 days, and expire them at 400 days.
C.Transition logs directly from S3 Standard to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 30 days and expire them at 400 days.
D.Move logs to S3 Intelligent-Tiering only and disable lifecycle transitions because access is unpredictable.
AnswerB

This follows the access pattern and the retrieval-time requirement. S3 Standard fits the heavy-read period in the first 30 days. Standard-IA is a lower-cost choice for the next 90 days when access is only occasional, and Glacier Flexible Retrieval is appropriate after day 120 because the logs are rarely read and can tolerate retrieval in hours. Expiration at day 400 satisfies the retention requirement exactly.

Why this answer

It aligns the storage class transitions with the access patterns: S3 Standard for the first 30 days (heavy reads), S3 Standard-IA for the next 90 days (occasional reads), and S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval for the remaining period (rare access, with retrieval up to several hours acceptable). This minimizes storage costs while ensuring data availability until day 400, where lifecycle expiration removes the objects.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may choose Option C (S3 Glacier Deep Archive) because it is the cheapest storage class, but they overlook the occasional access requirement between days 30 and 120 and the retrieval time constraints, which make S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval the correct choice for the final tier.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because keeping all logs in S3 Standard for 400 days is the most expensive option, and enabling requester pays does not reduce the company's bill for storage costs—it only shifts the cost of data retrieval to the requester, which is irrelevant here as the company owns the data. Option C is wrong because transitioning directly from S3 Standard to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 30 days ignores the occasional access needs between days 30 and 120; Deep Archive has a retrieval time of 12–48 hours and is not suitable for data that may be accessed occasionally, plus it incurs a minimum storage charge of 180 days. Option D is wrong because S3 Intelligent-Tiering is designed for unpredictable access patterns, but here the access pattern is predictable (heavy, occasional, rare), and disabling lifecycle transitions would prevent automatic cost optimization, leading to higher costs than a tailored lifecycle policy.

66
MCQhard

A financial services company stores monthly regulatory reports in an Amazon S3 bucket. The reports are accessed frequently for the first 60 days after creation for audits and internal review. After that period, they are almost never accessed but must be retained for seven years and retrieved within 12 hours if a regulator requests them. The compliance team requires that the objects remain in a single bucket and that retrieval costs be minimized. Which storage solution meets these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

A.Use S3 Intelligent-Tiering and let it move objects between frequent and infrequent access tiers automatically.
B.Keep all objects in S3 Standard and rely on S3 Versioning to reduce storage charges over time.
C.Apply a lifecycle policy that transitions objects to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval after 60 days.
D.Apply a lifecycle policy that transitions objects to S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval after 60 days.
AnswerC

S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval is an archive class that supports retrieval in minutes to hours, and its Standard retrieval option completes within 3 to 5 hours, comfortably inside the 12-hour requirement. It has lower storage cost than S3 Standard and Glacier Instant Retrieval, so transitioning objects after the 60-day active period minimizes cost while meeting the retrieval and retention requirements.

Why this answer

The objects are hot for 60 days and then cold for years, with a retrieval-time requirement measured in hours rather than milliseconds. A lifecycle transition to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval after 60 days matches that pattern: it lowers storage cost for the long retention period and its standard retrieval completes well within 12 hours. Keeping everything in a single bucket is supported because lifecycle rules operate within the bucket.

Exam trap

The trap here is conflating Glacier Instant Retrieval with Glacier Flexible Retrieval, since the word Glacier appears in both but only the flexible class is appropriate when hours, not milliseconds, are acceptable for retrieval.

67
MCQmedium

A test environment has EC2 instances that are oversized based on CPU, memory, and network utilisation. Which AWS service should identify rightsizing recommendations?

A.AWS DataSync
B.AWS Shield
C.AWS Artifact
D.AWS Compute Optimizer
AnswerD

AWS Compute Optimizer uses machine learning to analyze historical CloudWatch telemetry, including CPU, memory, I/O, and network utilization, and generates right-sizing recommendations for EC2 instances, Auto Scaling groups, and EBS volumes. It identifies underutilized or overprovisioned instances, providing confidence scores and potential cost savings, which directly addresses the oversized compute problem. For existing resources, it offers optimized findings and can suggest smaller instance types based on observed load.

Why this answer

AWS Compute Optimizer uses machine learning to analyze historical utilization metrics (CPU, memory, network, and storage) and provides rightsizing recommendations for EC2 instances, including over-provisioned resources. It helps reduce costs by suggesting instance types or sizes that better match actual workload demands.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse AWS Compute Optimizer with AWS Trusted Advisor, but Trusted Advisor provides general cost optimization checks (e.g., idle instances) while Compute Optimizer delivers granular, ML-driven rightsizing recommendations for specific instance types.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because AWS DataSync is a data transfer service for moving large datasets between on-premises storage and AWS services, not a resource optimization tool. Option B is wrong because AWS Shield is a managed DDoS protection service that safeguards applications from distributed denial-of-service attacks, not a rightsizing advisor. Option C is wrong because AWS Artifact is a self-service portal for accessing AWS compliance reports and agreements, such as SOC and PCI reports, and does not provide compute optimization recommendations.

68
MCQmedium

A batch analytics job runs for several hours each night and can be interrupted and restarted. Which EC2 purchasing option should minimize cost? The architecture review board prefers a managed AWS-native control.

A.On-Demand Instances only
B.Dedicated Hosts
C.Spot Instances
D.Provisioned IOPS volumes
AnswerC

Spot Instances exploit spare EC2 capacity at discounts up to 90%, and the job's interruptible, restartable nature satisfies their two-minute interruption notice without data loss. The architecture review board's managed AWS-native constraint is met because Spot is an AWS-native purchasing model, not a third-party broker.

Why this answer

Spot Instances are correct because the batch job is fault-tolerant (can be interrupted and restarted) and runs for several hours each night, making it an ideal candidate for Spot Instances, which offer up to 90% cost savings compared to On-Demand. AWS-managed services like EC2 Auto Scaling or Amazon EMR can automatically handle Spot Instance interruptions by replacing instances or checkpointing the job, aligning with the architecture review board's preference for a managed AWS-native control.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may choose On-Demand Instances (Option A) due to a misconception that Spot Instances are unreliable for any workload, failing to recognize that fault-tolerant, interruptible jobs like batch processing are exactly the use case for which Spot Instances are designed and recommended for cost optimization.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because On-Demand Instances provide no interruption but are significantly more expensive than Spot Instances for fault-tolerant workloads, failing to minimize cost. Option B is wrong because Dedicated Hosts are designed for licensing or compliance requirements (e.g., per-socket or per-core licensing) and are the most expensive option, not cost-optimal for a batch job that can tolerate interruptions. Option D is wrong because Provisioned IOPS volumes are a storage type (EBS), not an EC2 purchasing option, and thus irrelevant to the question of minimizing compute cost.

69
MCQeasy

A web service runs continuously on AWS 24/7. The team expects steady compute usage for the next 12–24 months, but may change instance families/sizes as performance tuning continues. Which purchase option best reduces cost while keeping flexibility to change instance types?

A.Buy EC2 On-Demand instances and rely on future Spot capacity for discounts
B.Use Compute Savings Plans for the expected steady usage
C.Buy Reserved Instances with a fixed instance type and region
D.Buy Spot Instances and stop scaling to avoid interruption risk
AnswerB

Compute Savings Plans provide a discounted hourly rate in exchange for a commitment. They are the most flexible Savings Plans option and can apply across EC2 usage regardless of instance family or size changes, so the team can continue tuning instance types while still receiving discounted pricing for the committed usage.

Why this answer

Compute Savings Plans offer the lowest prices (up to 66% off On-Demand) in exchange for a commitment to a consistent amount of compute usage (measured in $/hour) for a 1- or 3-year term. Unlike Reserved Instances, they automatically apply to any EC2 instance family, size, OS, or region, giving you the flexibility to change instance types as performance tuning evolves, while still reducing costs for steady-state workloads.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often confuse Reserved Instances (which lock instance family) with Savings Plans (which offer flexibility across families), leading them to choose Option C because they think 'Reserved' is the only way to get a discount for steady usage.

Why the other options are wrong

A

On-Demand instances with future Spot capacity do not guarantee cost reduction for steady 24/7 usage, as Spot instances can be interrupted and are not suitable for continuous workloads. Compute Savings Plans provide a consistent discount for steady usage while allowing instance family changes.

C

Reserved Instances lock you into a specific instance type and region, which contradicts the requirement to change instance families/sizes during performance tuning.

D

Spot Instances can be interrupted with little notice, making them unsuitable for a continuously running 24/7 web service that requires high availability and reliability.

70
MCQmedium

A company runs a stateless web tier on a fleet of On-Demand EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. Traffic is steady and predictable, and the team has committed to running this tier for the next three years with no planned architectural changes. Management wants the lowest possible compute cost while preserving the ability to change instance families during the term if a better price-performance option emerges. Which purchasing approach best meets these requirements?

A.Run the fleet on Spot Instances with a capacity-optimized allocation strategy.
B.Purchase a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan scoped to the current instance family and Region.
C.Purchase a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with a committed hourly spend.
D.Purchase a 3-year Standard Reserved Instance for each instance in the fleet.
AnswerC

Compute Savings Plans apply the largest discount to a committed hourly spend and automatically cover any EC2 instance family, size, tenancy, Region, and even Lambda and Fargate usage. This satisfies the steady three-year commitment while preserving the flexibility to change instance families, which is exactly what the team requires here.

Why this answer

A Compute Savings Plan is the right choice because it discounts a committed hourly spend across any EC2 instance family, size, and Region, plus Lambda and Fargate. That flexibility directly supports the requirement to change instance families during the three-year term, unlike a Standard Reserved Instance or an EC2 Instance Savings Plan, which are tied to a specific family or Region. Spot capacity is cheaper but cannot guarantee availability for a steady production tier.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming the deepest discount always wins, when the real constraint is the required flexibility to change instance families mid-term.

71
MCQeasy

A company stores 500 TB of archival data in Amazon S3. The data is accessed only once a year for compliance audits. The company wants the most cost-effective storage solution that still allows retrieval within 48 hours. Which S3 storage class should they use?

A.S3 Intelligent-Tiering
B.S3 Glacier Deep Archive
C.S3 Standard
D.S3 One Zone-IA
AnswerB

S3 Glacier Deep Archive is the lowest-cost storage class, designed for data that is rarely accessed and can tolerate retrieval times of 12 hours or more. It meets the 48-hour retrieval requirement and is ideal for compliance archives. With 500 TB stored and only annual access, this class provides the greatest cost savings compared to other options.

Why this answer

S3 Glacier Deep Archive is the most cost-effective storage class for long-term retention of data that is rarely accessed and can tolerate retrieval times of 12 hours or more. The 48-hour retrieval requirement is satisfied, and the annual access pattern aligns with its design. Other classes either cost more or do not offer the same savings for archival data.

Exam trap

The trap here is choosing S3 One Zone-IA or S3 Intelligent-Tiering because they sound cost-effective, but they are not optimized for data accessed only once a year with a 48-hour retrieval tolerance.

72
MCQmedium

A company stores 500 TB of data in Amazon S3 Standard. The data is accessed frequently for the first 30 days after creation, then access drops to almost zero, but the data must be retained for 10 years for compliance. The company wants to minimize storage costs. Which solution is MOST cost-effective?

A.Enable S3 Versioning and use S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) after 30 days.
B.Use S3 One Zone-IA after 30 days to reduce costs.
C.Create an S3 Lifecycle policy to transition objects to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 30 days.
D.Use S3 Intelligent-Tiering to automatically move data between access tiers.
AnswerC

S3 Glacier Deep Archive is the lowest-cost storage class for long-term retention, ideal for compliance data accessed rarely. Transitioning after 30 days aligns with the access pattern. Lifecycle policies automate the transition, eliminating manual intervention. This approach minimizes storage costs for the 10-year retention period, as Deep Archive costs significantly less than S3 Standard or other infrequent access tiers.

Why this answer

S3 Glacier Deep Archive offers the lowest storage cost for long-term retention and is designed for data accessed less than once per year. A lifecycle policy to transition after 30 days automates the process and ensures data is moved to the most economical tier. Other options either cost more or do not provide the necessary durability for compliance.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that S3 Intelligent-Tiering is always the most cost-effective for changing access patterns, but it incurs monitoring fees and is unnecessary when the access pattern is known and predictable.

73
MCQeasy

A company runs a steady-state web application on a fixed number of Amazon EC2 instances that have been running continuously for over a year. The workload is predictable and will remain in production for at least three more years. Management wants to reduce compute cost without changing the architecture. Which purchasing option should a solutions architect recommend?

A.Purchase a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with a partial upfront payment for the steady EC2 usage.
B.Use On-Demand Instances and enable detailed monitoring to improve utilization visibility.
C.Move the application to Dedicated Instances to obtain volume discounts on the hourly rate.
D.Convert the instances to Spot Instances to take advantage of unused EC2 capacity.
AnswerA

A Compute Savings Plan applies to EC2 usage regardless of instance family, size, tenancy, or Region, and a 3-year term with partial upfront payment yields a significant discount over On-Demand. Because the workload is predictable and will run for at least three more years, this commitment matches the usage and reduces compute cost without architectural changes.

Why this answer

For predictable, long-running EC2 usage, a Compute Savings Plan provides a lower effective hourly rate in exchange for a term commitment. It is flexible across instance families and Regions, so it reduces cost without requiring the application to change. Spot risks interruption, On-Demand forgoes discounts, and Dedicated Instances raise cost rather than lower it.

Exam trap

The trap here is choosing Spot because it has the deepest discount, while ignoring that a steady production web application cannot tolerate the interruptions Spot permits.

74
MCQmedium

A SaaS company uses an S3 bucket for database backups created daily. Backups are rarely restored; the company’s documented RTO is 24 hours, and the compliance policy requires backups be kept for 90 days. The team currently stores all backups in S3 Standard, which is costly. Which single lifecycle policy change is most cost-optimized while still meeting the 24-hour RTO and 90-day retention?

A.Add a lifecycle rule to transition backups older than 1 day to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval, and keep them until day 90.
B.Add a lifecycle rule to transition backups older than 1 day to S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval, and keep them until day 90.
C.Add a lifecycle rule to transition backups older than 1 day to S3 Glacier Deep Archive, and keep them until day 90 with no restore configuration.
D.Add a lifecycle rule to transition backups older than 1 day to S3 One Zone-IA, and delete them after 7 days.
AnswerA

This option correctly leverages S3 Lifecycle rules to transition older, less frequently accessed backups to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval. This storage class provides significant cost savings compared to S3 Standard or S3-IA, while still supporting retrieval times measured in hours, which comfortably meets a 24-hour Recovery Time Objective (RTO). Maintaining retention until day 90 also satisfies the long-term data retention requirement efficiently.

Why this answer

S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval provides retrieval times from minutes to hours, which meets the 24-hour RTO, and offers significant cost savings over S3 Standard for data that is rarely accessed. Transitioning backups older than 1 day to this storage class reduces costs while retaining them for the required 90-day compliance period.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may choose S3 Glacier Deep Archive for maximum cost savings without verifying that its retrieval time (12–48 hours) can exceed the 24-hour RTO, or they may overlook that S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval is not the most cost-effective option for data that is restored only rarely.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval is designed for data accessed once a quarter with millisecond retrieval, but it is more expensive than S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval and not the most cost-optimized choice for backups restored only rarely within a 24-hour RTO. Option C is wrong because S3 Glacier Deep Archive has a retrieval time of 12–48 hours, which may exceed the 24-hour RTO, and the option lacks a restore configuration, making it non-compliant with the RTO requirement. Option D is wrong because S3 One Zone-IA does not provide the durability or availability needed for critical backups, and deleting backups after 7 days violates the 90-day retention policy.

75
MCQeasy

A team stores application logs in Amazon S3. They need access to the logs only occasionally for troubleshooting (infrequent access), and they want to reduce storage cost automatically over time without manually moving objects. What should they implement?

A.An S3 lifecycle policy that transitions objects to a lower-cost storage class after a set number of days
B.An S3 lifecycle policy that deletes objects after 1 day to eliminate storage costs
C.An S3 lifecycle policy that keeps all objects in S3 Standard and only applies compression at read time
D.A policy that changes bucket encryption from SSE-S3 to SSE-KMS to reduce storage cost
AnswerA

S3 lifecycle policies can automatically transition objects based on age to storage classes priced for infrequent access (for example, Standard-IA or Glacier-based classes). This preserves the data for later troubleshooting while lowering storage cost as objects become older.

Why this answer

An S3 lifecycle policy can automatically transition objects from S3 Standard to lower-cost storage classes (e.g., S3 Standard-IA, S3 One Zone-IA, or S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval) after a specified number of days. This meets the requirement of reducing storage costs over time for infrequently accessed logs without manual intervention, as the policy automates the movement based on object age.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse lifecycle policies with deletion policies, thinking that deleting objects after a short period (Option B) is a valid cost-saving strategy, but the question explicitly requires retaining logs for occasional troubleshooting, so deletion is not appropriate.

Why the other options are wrong

B

Deleting logs after 1 day prevents troubleshooting access for incidents that may occur later, and the requirement is to reduce cost automatically over time, not eliminate data immediately.

C

S3 Lifecycle policies cannot apply compression at read time; they only transition or expire objects. Compression at read time is not a storage cost reduction feature and would not automatically reduce costs over time.

D

Changing encryption from SSE-S3 to SSE-KMS does not reduce storage cost; in fact, SSE-KMS incurs additional KMS key usage charges, increasing cost.

Page 1 of 3 · 170 questions totalNext →

Ready to test yourself?

Try a timed practice session using only Design Cost questions.