SAP-C02 Practice Question: Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization

A company is migrating a legacy on-premises application to AWS. The application uses a monolithic architecture and a self-managed MySQL database. The company wants to reduce operational overhead and improve scalability with minimal application changes. A solutions architect needs to recommend a migration path for the database. Which AWS service should the solutions architect use?

⚠ Common exam trap

The trap here is over-engineering by choosing Amazon Aurora when a simpler managed MySQL service like Amazon RDS for MySQL is sufficient, or mistakenly selecting a NoSQL or data warehouse service.

Answer choices

Why each option matters

Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.

Correct answer & explanation

✓

Amazon RDS for MySQL

Amazon RDS for MySQL provides a managed MySQL-compatible database that minimizes operational tasks such as patching, backups, and replication. Because the application already uses MySQL, the migration can be as simple as using AWS Database Migration Service to replicate the data and then updating the application's connection string. This meets the goals of reducing operational overhead and improving scalability without requiring application rewrites. Other services either use different data models or are optimized for analytics rather than transactions.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

✗
Amazon Aurora MySQL-Compatible Edition
Why it's wrong here
Amazon Aurora MySQL-Compatible Edition is a MySQL-compatible managed database, but it is not the simplest migration path for a legacy application that only needs reduced operational overhead. Aurora introduces a new storage architecture and may require some application changes for optimal use, such as adjusting for its endpoint behavior. While Aurora is highly scalable, it can be more expensive and complex than RDS for MySQL for a straightforward lift-and-shift database migration.
✓
Amazon RDS for MySQL
Why this is correct
Amazon RDS for MySQL is a managed relational database service that is compatible with MySQL. It handles provisioning, patching, backups, and Multi-AZ replication, reducing operational overhead. Because the application already uses MySQL, migrating to RDS for MySQL requires minimal application changes; often only the connection string needs updating. This aligns with the goal of reducing operational overhead while preserving compatibility and improving scalability.
✗
Amazon DynamoDB
Why it's wrong here
Amazon DynamoDB is a NoSQL key-value and document database that does not support SQL or the MySQL wire protocol. Migrating a MySQL-based application to DynamoDB would require a complete rewrite of the data access layer and schema design, which contradicts the requirement for minimal application changes. While DynamoDB offers high scalability and low operational overhead, it is not a drop-in replacement for a relational MySQL database.
✗
Amazon Redshift
Why it's wrong here
Amazon Redshift is a data warehousing service optimized for analytical queries on large datasets. It is not designed for transactional workloads or as a drop-in replacement for an OLTP MySQL database. Migrating a legacy application's operational database to Redshift would require significant schema and query changes, and Redshift does not support the MySQL protocol. This service is unsuitable for the transactional needs of the application.

Go deeper

SAP-C02 Practice Question: Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization

Why each option matters

Option-by-option breakdown

Related to this question