Courseiva

CCNA Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization Questions

75 of 235 questions · Page 3/4 · Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization · Answers revealed

151
MCQhard

Refer to the exhibit. A company is using AWS Migration Hub to track database migration tasks. The migration task for 'app-server-01' has failed. The progress update stream is 'DMS'. Which AWS service is most likely responsible for the migration failure?

A.AWS Application Migration Service (CloudEndure)
B.AWS Database Migration Service (DMS)
C.AWS Server Migration Service (SMS)
D.AWS CloudEndure Migration
AnswerB

The progress update stream is named DMS, and Migration Hub attributes each task to the service that reported it. The failed task was therefore submitted by AWS Database Migration Service, making DMS the service responsible for the failure.

Why this answer

The progress update stream is explicitly 'DMS', which stands for AWS Database Migration Service. In AWS Migration Hub, the progress update stream identifies the migration tool that is reporting the task status. Since the stream is DMS, the task was created and is being executed by AWS Database Migration Service, making it the service responsible for the failure.

Other services like Application Migration Service or Server Migration Service would report under different progress update streams (e.g., 'MGN' or 'SMS').

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the ability to distinguish between migration services based on their progress update streams in AWS Migration Hub, and candidates may incorrectly assume that a failed task named 'app-server-01' implies a server migration service rather than a database migration service.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because AWS Application Migration Service (CloudEndure) is used for server migration, not database migration, and would report under a different progress update stream (e.g., 'MGN'). Option C is wrong because AWS Server Migration Service is for migrating on-premises servers to AWS, not databases, and its progress update stream would be 'SMS'. Option D is wrong because AWS CloudEndure Migration is a server migration service (now part of AWS Application Migration Service) and is not associated with the 'DMS' progress update stream.

152
MCQmedium

A company is modernizing its legacy PHP application to run on AWS. The application is currently deployed on a single on-premises server with a LAMP stack. The company wants to use containerization to improve scalability and deployment speed. Which AWS service should be used to run the containers with minimal operational overhead?

A.AWS Lambda
B.Amazon ECS with AWS Fargate
C.Amazon EKS with Amazon EC2
D.Amazon ECS with Amazon EC2 launch type
AnswerB

Fargate removes the need to provision or patch EC2 instances, since ECS schedules the PHP container tasks onto AWS-managed compute. This directly satisfies the minimal operational overhead constraint while delivering the containerisation-based scalability and faster deployments the LAMP migration requires.

Why this answer

Amazon ECS with AWS Fargate is correct because Fargate is a serverless compute engine for containers that eliminates the need to provision, configure, or manage EC2 instances. The company can run its containerized PHP application without patching hosts or scaling clusters, delivering minimal operational overhead while supporting containerization for scalability and faster deployments.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the distinction between 'containerized' and 'serverless functions' — candidates incorrectly pick Lambda for containerized web apps, ignoring Lambda's execution model and time limits.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because AWS Lambda runs event-driven functions with a 15-minute execution limit and does not natively run long-lived containerized web applications like a LAMP stack. Option C is wrong because Amazon EKS with EC2 requires managing Kubernetes control plane integrations and worker nodes, adding operational overhead. Option D is wrong because ECS with the EC2 launch type requires the customer to manage, patch, and scale the underlying EC2 instances, which is not minimal operational overhead.

153
MCQmedium

A company is migrating an on-premises Java application to AWS. The application uses a shared file system for storing configuration files and user uploads. The company wants to minimize changes to the application and ensure that the file system is highly available and scalable. Which AWS service should be used?

A.Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS).
B.Amazon S3 with the AWS SDK for Java to read and write files.
C.Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) with Multi-Attach enabled.
D.Amazon FSx for Windows File Server.
AnswerA

Amazon EFS is a fully managed, scalable, and highly available NFS file system that can be mounted on multiple EC2 instances across Availability Zones. It supports POSIX permissions and can be used without application changes. This makes it ideal for a shared file system for configuration files and user uploads, meeting the requirements for high availability and scalability.

Why this answer

Amazon EFS is a fully managed NFS file system that provides shared access across multiple EC2 instances and Availability Zones. It requires no application changes and automatically scales, meeting the requirements for high availability and scalability. Other options either do not provide a shared file system or require application modifications.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that Amazon S3 can be used as a file system without changes, but S3 requires SDK integration and is not a POSIX-compliant shared file system.

154
MCQhard

A company is migrating a legacy .NET Framework 4.8 application to AWS. The application uses Windows authentication integrated with Active Directory and relies on a shared file system for configuration files. The company wants to minimize operational overhead and use managed services. Which combination of AWS services should the company use to modernize the application?

A.AWS Managed Microsoft AD, Amazon EFS, and AWS Elastic Beanstalk for .NET on Windows
B.Amazon Cognito, Amazon RDS for SQL Server, and AWS Lambda
C.AWS Directory Service for Microsoft AD, Amazon S3, and AWS App Runner
D.AWS Managed Microsoft AD, Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, and AWS Elastic Beanstalk for .NET on Windows
AnswerD

AWS Managed Microsoft AD supplies the managed domain for Windows authentication, FSx for Windows File Server provides the shared SMB file system, and Elastic Beanstalk removes patching and scaling overhead, satisfying the minimise-operational-overhead and managed-services constraints.

Why this answer

AWS Managed Microsoft AD provides Windows authentication integrated with Active Directory, FSx for Windows File Server provides a managed shared file system that supports Windows-native SMB protocol and NTFS permissions, and AWS Elastic Beanstalk for .NET on Windows minimizes operational overhead for hosting a .NET Framework 4.8 application. Option A (EFS) does not natively support Windows authentication or SMB protocol, making it unsuitable. Option B (RDS for SQL Server) is unnecessary as the application does not require a database.

Option C (App Runner) does not support .NET Framework applications, and S3 cannot function as a Windows shared file system.

155
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a .NET application from Windows Server to Linux on EC2. The application uses a proprietary COM+ component that cannot be recompiled. Which migration path should they take?

A.Rehost the application on Linux EC2 using Wine
B.Rehost the application on Windows Server EC2 instances
C.Refactor the COM+ component to a REST API
D.Replatform the application to .NET Core and run on Linux
AnswerB

COM+ relies on Windows-specific component services unavailable on Linux, so recompilation is impossible. Rehosting to Windows Server EC2 preserves the proprietary binary unchanged, satisfying the constraint that the component cannot be recompiled while still moving to AWS.

Why this answer

The application uses a proprietary COM+ component that cannot be recompiled, and COM+ is a Windows-specific technology. Therefore, the only viable migration path is to rehost the application on Windows Server EC2 instances, where COM+ is natively supported. Migrating to Linux would require recompilation or emulation, which is not feasible for a proprietary component.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that Wine or .NET Core can replace COM+ functionality, when in reality COM+ is Windows-specific and cannot be easily ported.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because Wine is a compatibility layer for running Windows applications on Linux, but it does not support COM+ components reliably, especially proprietary ones, and is not recommended for production. Option C is wrong because refactoring the COM+ component to a REST API would require recompilation or rewriting, which is not possible since it cannot be recompiled. Option D is wrong because replatforming to .NET Core and running on Linux would require the COM+ component to be ported, which is not feasible without recompilation.

156
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a legacy three-tier application to AWS. The application tier is stateless and can be containerized, but the database tier is a commercial relational database that the vendor will only license on specific instance types. The company wants to reduce operational overhead for the database while keeping the same engine and minimizing schema changes. Which migration approach should a solutions architect recommend?

A.Rehost the database to Amazon EC2 on vendor-certified instance types and manage patching, backups, and high availability manually
B.Replatform the database to Amazon Aurora with aBabelfish endpoint to emulate the commercial engine's wire protocol
C.Refactor the database to a NoSQL model on Amazon DynamoDB to eliminate instance management entirely
D.Replatform the database to Amazon RDS for the same engine using a vendor-supported instance class, and use Multi-AZ for high availability
AnswerD

Amazon RDS supports several commercial engines on specific instance classes, and it provides automated backups, patching, and Multi-AZ failover without schema changes. Because the engine stays the same, the application's SQL and drivers remain compatible, satisfying the minimal-change requirement. This reduces operational overhead compared with self-managed EC2 while honoring vendor licensing constraints.

Why this answer

Replatforming to Amazon RDS for the same commercial engine keeps SQL and driver compatibility while offloading patching, backups, and failover to AWS. Multi-AZ provides synchronous standby replication for high availability, and instance classes can be chosen to satisfy vendor licensing terms. Self-managing on EC2 reduces managed benefits, while NoSQL or Babelfish approaches change the engine and risk schema or feature incompatibility.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that any managed AWS database service will accept the existing commercial engine unchanged, when only Amazon RDS for that specific engine preserves full compatibility.

157
Multi-Selectmedium

A company is migrating a legacy application to AWS. The application requires a relational database with read replicas for reporting. The company wants to minimize operational overhead. Which TWO database services meet these requirements?

Select 2 answers
A.Amazon DynamoDB
B.Amazon Redshift
C.Amazon Aurora
D.Amazon RDS for MySQL
E.Amazon ElastiCache
AnswersC, D

Managed relational with up to 15 read replicas.

Why this answer

Amazon Aurora is a MySQL- and PostgreSQL-compatible relational database built for the cloud, combining the performance and availability of high-end commercial databases with the simplicity and cost-effectiveness of open-source databases. It supports up to 15 low-latency read replicas, which can be used for reporting workloads, and it automates time-consuming tasks such as hardware provisioning, database setup, patching, and backups, thereby minimizing operational overhead.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse Amazon RDS for MySQL (Option D) as the only correct relational database with read replicas, but Amazon Aurora is also correct because it is a fully managed relational database that natively supports read replicas with lower operational overhead than standard RDS.

158
MCQeasy

A company is migrating an application that uses a commercial database to Amazon RDS. The database size is 500 GB. Which migration approach minimizes downtime?

A.Use native database tools to export and import data.
B.Use AWS Snowball Edge to transfer the database files.
C.Use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) with ongoing replication (change data capture).
D.Copy database files to Amazon S3 and restore to RDS.
AnswerC

AWS DMS with change data capture performs a full load then continuously replicates ongoing changes from the source database to Amazon RDS, keeping the target synchronised until cutover. This minimises downtime because the application stays live on the source during migration, with only a brief final switchover.

Why this answer

AWS DMS with ongoing replication uses change data capture (CDC) to continuously apply changes from the source database to the target RDS instance after the initial full load. This keeps the target in sync until cutover, minimizing downtime to only the final switchover window. It is the standard AWS-recommended approach for minimal-downtime heterogeneous or homogeneous database migrations.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests whether candidates confuse bulk transfer tools (Snowball) or simple dump/restore with true minimal-downtime migration — the key differentiator is continuous replication via CDC, which only AWS DMS provides among these options.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because native export/import requires taking the source offline during the dump and load, producing significant downtime for a 500 GB database. Option B is wrong because Snowball Edge is for bulk offline data transfer and does not provide continuous replication or database-aware migration — it also requires shipping time. Option D is wrong because copying raw database files to S3 and restoring to RDS is not a supported or practical path for most commercial databases and offers no ongoing replication.

159
Drag & Dropmedium

Drag and drop the steps to configure an Application Load Balancer with HTTPS listeners in the correct order.

Drag or tap steps into the slots.

Steps
Order
1Step 1
2Step 2
3Step 3
4Step 4

Why this order

First get the certificate, then create the target group, then the ALB with HTTPS, register targets, and update DNS.

160
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a critical application to AWS. The application requires consistent performance and low latency. The company has selected an instance type that meets the performance requirements. However, during testing, the application experiences variable performance due to CPU stealing from other instances on the same physical host. What should the company do to mitigate this issue?

A.Use Amazon EC2 Dedicated Hosts for the instances
B.Launch instances in a cluster placement group
C.Use T2 or T3 instances with the unlimited credit option
D.Switch to a compute-optimized instance type such as C5
AnswerA

Amazon EC2 Dedicated Hosts give the instance exclusive use of a physical server, so no other tenants share the host and CPU stealing cannot occur. This satisfies the requirement for consistent performance and low latency.

Why this answer

Dedicated Hosts provide dedicated physical servers, eliminating CPU stealing. Option B (placement group) helps with network performance, not CPU isolation. Option C (T2/T3 unlimited) is for burstable instances, not dedicated.

Option D (C5 instance) does not prevent CPU stealing.

161
Multi-Selectmedium

A company is migrating a legacy application to AWS. The application requires a relational database. The company wants to minimize operational overhead. Which TWO options should the company consider? (Choose two.)

Select 2 answers
A.AWS Database Migration Service
B.Amazon Aurora
C.Amazon S3
D.Amazon RDS
E.Amazon EC2 with self-managed database
AnswersB, D

Amazon Aurora is a fully managed relational engine, so it satisfies the requirement to minimise operational overhead: AWS handles provisioning, patching, backups and replication. Unlike self-managed engines on Amazon EC2, Aurora removes database administration, and its MySQL and PostgreSQL compatibility suits a legacy relational workload being migrated.

Why this answer

Amazon Aurora (B) is correct because it is a fully managed relational database engine compatible with MySQL and PostgreSQL, and AWS handles provisioning, patching, backups, replication, and scaling, which directly minimizes operational overhead for a relational workload. Amazon RDS (D) is also correct because it is a managed relational database service that automates routine administration tasks such as backups, software patching, and Multi-AZ failover, making it a low-overhead fit for a legacy relational application. AWS Database Migration Service (A) is a migration tool rather than a target database, so it does not itself satisfy the application's relational database requirement.

Amazon S3 (C) is object storage, not a relational database, so it cannot run the legacy application's relational workload. Amazon EC2 with a self-managed database (E) requires the company to handle installation, patching, backups, and scaling, which increases rather than minimizes operational overhead.

162
MCQmedium

A company wants to migrate a legacy monolithic application to AWS with minimal changes. The application currently runs on a single on-premises server with a Microsoft SQL Server database. The company wants to use AWS managed services to reduce operational overhead. Which combination of services should the company use to meet these requirements?

A.AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) to Amazon EC2, and AWS DMS to Amazon DynamoDB
B.AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) to Amazon EC2, and AWS DMS to Amazon RDS for SQL Server
C.AWS Server Migration Service (SMS) to Amazon EC2, and AWS DMS to Amazon RDS for SQL Server
D.AWS CloudFormation to provision EC2 instances, and AWS DMS to Amazon RDS for SQL Server
AnswerB

MGN replicates the legacy server to Amazon EC2 with minimal application change, while AWS DMS migrates the SQL Server database to Amazon RDS for SQL Server, a managed service that reduces operational overhead and preserves engine compatibility.

Why this answer

AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) enables lift-and-shift migration of the on-premises server to Amazon EC2 with minimal changes, while AWS DMS can migrate the Microsoft SQL Server database to Amazon RDS for SQL Server, a fully managed service that reduces operational overhead. This combination meets the requirement of minimal application changes and leverages AWS managed services for the database.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates might choose Option A thinking DynamoDB is a managed database service, but they overlook the requirement for minimal changes, which is broken by switching from a relational to a NoSQL database, or they might pick Option C not realizing SMS is deprecated and lacks the continuous replication capabilities of MGN.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because AWS DMS cannot migrate a SQL Server database to Amazon DynamoDB (a NoSQL database) without significant application changes to adapt to a different data model and query language, violating the 'minimal changes' requirement. Option C is wrong because AWS Server Migration Service (SMS) is deprecated and replaced by AWS Application Migration Service (MGN); using SMS would not be a current best practice and may lack support. Option D is wrong because AWS CloudFormation is an infrastructure-as-code provisioning tool, not a migration service; it does not directly migrate the application or database, and using it alone would not reduce operational overhead for the migration itself.

163
MCQmedium

A healthcare company is migrating a legacy patient records system to AWS. The system uses an Oracle database with complex stored procedures and triggers. The company wants to move to Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL to reduce licensing costs. They need to convert the schema and code with minimal manual effort. Which AWS service should they use?

A.AWS Schema Conversion Tool (AWS SCT)
B.AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS)
C.AWS DataSync
D.AWS Application Migration Service (AWS MGN)
AnswerA

AWS Schema Conversion Tool is designed to convert database schemas and code objects from one database engine to another, such as from Oracle to PostgreSQL. It automatically converts stored procedures, triggers, and views, and provides an assessment report highlighting items that require manual intervention. This directly reduces manual effort and accelerates the migration to Aurora PostgreSQL.

Why this answer

AWS Schema Conversion Tool is specifically built to convert database schemas and procedural code from one engine to another. It automates the conversion of Oracle PL/SQL to PostgreSQL PL/pgSQL, significantly reducing manual effort. While AWS DMS handles data migration, it does not convert schema objects, so SCT is the correct choice for this scenario.

Exam trap

The trap here is confusing data migration with schema conversion; AWS DMS moves data, but AWS SCT converts the schema and code.

164
MCQhard

A company is migrating a large Oracle database to Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL using AWS DMS. The database is 5 TB and has frequent write operations. The migration must have minimal downtime. Which configuration should be used?

A.Use AWS DMS with full load and ongoing replication using CDC
B.Use AWS DataSync for the database files
C.Use AWS SCT to convert schema and then copy data manually
D.Use AWS DMS with full load only
AnswerA

AWS DMS full load copies the existing 5 TB dataset, then ongoing replication applies change data capture from the source transaction logs, continuously propagating writes to Aurora PostgreSQL. This keeps the target current until cutover, achieving the minimal downtime the migration demands.

Why this answer

AWS DMS with full load and ongoing replication using CDC allows continuous syncing after the full load, minimizing downtime. Option D (full load only) would cause downtime during migration. Option B (AWS DataSync) is for file-based data, not databases.

Option C (AWS SCT) is for schema conversion only, not data migration.

165
MCQeasy

A company wants to modernize a batch processing application that runs on EC2 instances using a cron job. The job processes files from an S3 bucket and takes about 2 hours. They want to reduce operational overhead. Which service should they use?

A.AWS Batch
B.Amazon ECS with Fargate
C.AWS Lambda
D.AWS Step Functions
AnswerA

AWS Batch manages the compute environment, queueing and scheduling, removing the cron and EC2 instance maintenance. It satisfies the reduced-operational-overhead constraint while handling the two-hour S3-sourced job, since Batch supports long-running jobs that AWS Lambda's fifteen-minute limit would preclude.

Why this answer

AWS Batch is purpose-built for batch computing workloads, automatically provisioning and managing compute resources (EC2 or Fargate) based on job requirements. It handles job queuing, scheduling, dependency management, and retries, eliminating the need to manage cron jobs or EC2 instances. The 2-hour runtime is well within Batch's capabilities, and it integrates natively with S3 for data input/output.

This reduces operational overhead by abstracting infrastructure management while providing cost-effective scaling.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that AWS Lambda can handle any duration if you just increase memory, but the 15-minute hard limit makes it unsuitable for long-running batch jobs; similarly, candidates may confuse Step Functions as a compute service when it only orchestrates.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because Amazon ECS with Fargate is a container orchestration service that still requires you to manage task definitions, services, and scheduling (e.g., via CloudWatch Events or manual API calls) — it does not provide native batch job queuing, dependency handling, or automatic retries. Option C is wrong because AWS Lambda has a maximum execution timeout of 15 minutes, far short of the 2-hour processing time. Option D is wrong because AWS Step Functions is a serverless workflow orchestrator that coordinates multiple steps but does not itself run compute; you would still need to integrate with other services (like Lambda or ECS) and manage the underlying compute, adding complexity rather than reducing operational overhead for a single long-running batch job.

166
MCQmedium

A company is migrating an on-premises monolithic application to AWS. The application uses a legacy database that cannot be easily refactored. The company wants to minimize changes to the application code while gaining scalability and high availability. Which migration strategy should the architect recommend?

A.Rehost the application on Amazon EC2 and use Amazon RDS for the database.
B.Replatform the application to use AWS Elastic Beanstalk and Amazon DynamoDB.
C.Refactor the application to use a microservices architecture with Amazon Aurora.
D.Retire the application and replace it with a SaaS solution.
AnswerA

Rehosting on Amazon EC2 preserves the application's existing code, satisfying the minimal-change constraint, while Amazon RDS supplies managed Multi-AZ high availability and read-replica scalability for the legacy database. Because the monolith cannot be refactored, lift-and-shift onto EC2 with a managed database engine avoids code rewrites yet still delivers the required resilience.

Why this answer

Rehosting (lift-and-shift) moves the application to Amazon EC2 and the legacy database to Amazon RDS with minimal code changes, satisfying the requirement to minimize application modifications. Amazon RDS provides managed high availability through Multi-AZ deployments and read scalability via read replicas, while EC2 offers the familiar environment the monolithic app expects. This strategy preserves the existing database engine compatibility (e.g., Oracle, SQL Server) so the application's connection strings and queries remain largely unchanged.

It directly addresses scalability and HA without forcing a refactor or replatform.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the trade-off between migration speed and optimization, tempting candidates to choose replatforming or refactoring when the requirement explicitly says 'minimize changes' — the trap is over-engineering the solution instead of selecting the simplest lift-and-shift.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because replatforming to Elastic Beanstalk and DynamoDB requires significant code changes to replace relational database calls with NoSQL APIs, violating the 'minimize changes' constraint. Option C is wrong because refactoring to microservices with Aurora is a major architectural rewrite that contradicts the goal of minimal code changes and is unnecessary for a lift-and-shift migration. Option D is wrong because retiring and replacing with SaaS abandons the existing application entirely, which is not a migration strategy that preserves the legacy database or minimizes changes.

167
MCQhard

A company is using AWS Migration Hub to track a server migration. The migration task has failed with the error shown in the exhibit. Which action should the solutions architect take to resolve the issue?

A.Change the migration port from 443 to 80.
B.Retry the migration using AWS CloudEndure instead of AWS MGN.
C.Increase the timeout value for the migration task.
D.Ensure the source server's SSL certificate is signed by a trusted Certificate Authority (CA).
AnswerD

Replacing the self-signed certificate with one issued by a trusted Certificate Authority satisfies the Migration Hub validation requirement, because the agent's TLS handshake to the service endpoint is rejected when the chain cannot be verified. A publicly trusted CA resolves that trust failure without altering network paths or agent configuration.

Why this answer

The migration task failed due to an SSL certificate validation error, which occurs when the source server presents a certificate not signed by a trusted Certificate Authority. AWS MGN (Application Migration Service) requires a valid, trusted certificate for the replication agent's TLS connection. Ensuring the source server's SSL certificate is signed by a trusted CA resolves the handshake failure.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often presents SSL/certificate errors alongside network errors — candidates who see 'migration failed' reach for timeout or port changes, missing that the error text specifically indicates a certificate trust problem.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because changing the migration port from 443 to 80 does not address a certificate validation error — port 80 is unencrypted HTTP and MGN replication uses TLS on 443; the error is about certificate trust, not port reachability. Option B is wrong because CloudEndure is the predecessor to MGN and switching tools does not fix an invalid certificate on the source server. Option C is wrong because increasing the timeout addresses slow connections, not TLS handshake failures caused by untrusted certificates.

168
MCQhard

A company is migrating a legacy e-commerce application to AWS. The application includes a web tier, an application tier, and a MySQL database. The company wants to improve scalability and reduce operational overhead. The architect plans to use Amazon RDS for MySQL and refactor the application to use Auto Scaling for the web and application tiers. However, the application currently stores session state locally on the web servers. What should the architect do to address session state management in the new architecture?

A.Store session state in Amazon S3
B.Store session state in Amazon RDS for MySQL
C.Configure an Application Load Balancer with sticky sessions
D.Use Amazon ElastiCache for Redis to store session state
AnswerD

ElastiCache for Redis externalises session state into a shared, low-latency store, so any Auto Scaling web instance can read the same session regardless of which server handled the prior request. It satisfies the stem's constraint that locally stored sessions break horizontal scaling behind a load balancer.

Why this answer

Using ElastiCache for Redis provides a centralized, scalable session store that works with Auto Scaling. Using sticky sessions (ELB session stickiness) is a workaround but less scalable and not recommended for Auto Scaling. Storing sessions in RDS would add database load.

Storing in S3 is not suitable for low-latency session access.

169
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a high-traffic web application from on-premises to AWS. The application uses a shared file system for storing user uploads, and the company wants to ensure high availability and durability across multiple Availability Zones. The migration must be completed with minimal changes to the application code. Which AWS service should be used for the shared file system?

A.Amazon FSx for Lustre with a linked S3 bucket for durability.
B.Amazon FSx for Windows File Server with Multi-AZ deployment.
C.Amazon EFS with a mount target in each Availability Zone and a lifecycle policy to move infrequent access files to EFS IA.
D.Amazon S3 with a mounted file system using s3fs-fuse on each web server.
AnswerC

Amazon EFS provides a fully managed, scalable, and durable NFS file system that can be mounted on multiple EC2 instances across AZs. It requires no application code changes and supports high availability. The lifecycle policy optimizes cost by moving less frequently accessed files to EFS IA storage class.

Why this answer

Amazon EFS is a fully managed, elastic NFS file system that can be mounted on EC2 instances across multiple AZs, providing high availability and durability. It requires no application changes since it presents a standard file system interface. The lifecycle policy helps manage costs by moving infrequently accessed files to a lower-cost storage class.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that Amazon S3 can be used as a drop-in replacement for a shared file system without application changes, but S3 is object storage and requires code modifications to use its API.

170
MCQhard

A company is migrating a legacy CRM application from a colocation facility to AWS. The application uses a client-server architecture with a thick client installed on employee desktops. The company wants to reduce desktop administration and provide remote access. Which migration approach should the architect recommend?

A.Deploy the thick client on Amazon WorkSpaces and provide access to employees
B.Refactor the application into a web application using AWS App Runner
C.Rehost the application on Amazon EC2 and provide VPN access to employees
D.Retire the application and use a SaaS alternative
AnswerA

Amazon WorkSpaces delivers persistent virtual desktops, so the existing thick client runs unmodified on managed cloud-hosted Windows instances. This satisfies the reduced desktop administration and remote access constraints without refactoring the client-server application, unlike application-streaming or SaaS alternatives that would require code changes.

Why this answer

Amazon WorkSpaces is a fully managed Desktop-as-a-Service (DaaS) solution that hosts a Windows or Linux desktop in the AWS cloud. By deploying the thick client on WorkSpaces, the company eliminates the need to install and maintain the client on each employee's physical desktop, reducing desktop administration overhead. Employees can access their WorkSpaces from any device using a client or web browser, providing secure remote access without requiring a VPN.

This directly addresses both goals: reduced desktop administration and remote access.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that rehosting on EC2 with VPN is sufficient for remote access, but it fails to address the desktop administration reduction goal; candidates must recognize that DaaS solutions like WorkSpaces are designed for this exact scenario.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because refactoring the application into a web app using AWS App Runner requires significant re-architecture and code changes, which is not a migration approach but a modernization effort that may be time-consuming and costly. Option C is wrong because rehosting on EC2 and providing VPN access still requires installing and managing the thick client on each employee's desktop, which does not reduce desktop administration. Option D is wrong because retiring the application and using a SaaS alternative is not a migration of the existing application; it may be a valid business decision but does not meet the requirement to migrate the legacy CRM application.

171
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a legacy application that uses SOAP web services to AWS. The application currently runs on a single on-premises server. The company wants to minimize changes and reduce operational overhead. Which approach should the company take?

A.Refactor the SOAP web services to RESTful APIs and deploy on Amazon API Gateway and AWS Lambda.
B.Containerize the application and deploy it on Amazon ECS using Fargate.
C.Rehost the application on Amazon EC2 using AWS Application Migration Service (MGN).
D.Use AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) to migrate the database and redeploy the application manually.
AnswerC

Rehosting on Amazon EC2 with AWS Application Migration Service lifts and shifts the SOAP application unchanged, satisfying the minimal-changes constraint. MGN replicates the existing server to AWS without refactoring, and EC2 keeps operational overhead lower than replatforming or rebuilding the legacy SOAP stack.

Why this answer

Rehosting the application on Amazon EC2 using AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) minimizes changes by lifting and shifting the entire on-premises server, including the SOAP web services, to AWS with minimal modification. This approach reduces operational overhead by automating server replication and cutover, avoiding the need to refactor or containerize the application, which aligns with the requirement to minimize changes.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may assume modernizing to serverless or containers is always better, but the question explicitly requires minimizing changes, making rehosting the correct choice despite its perceived lack of modernization.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because refactoring SOAP web services to RESTful APIs and deploying on Amazon API Gateway and AWS Lambda introduces significant changes to the application architecture and code, contradicting the requirement to minimize changes. Option B is wrong because containerizing the application and deploying on Amazon ECS using Fargate requires modifying the application to run in containers, which adds operational complexity and changes the deployment model, increasing rather than reducing overhead. Option D is wrong because using AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) only addresses database migration, not the application itself, and manually redeploying the application does not minimize changes or reduce operational overhead compared to a fully automated rehosting solution.

172
MCQeasy

A company is migrating its on-premises VMware VMs to AWS using AWS MGN. After the test cutover, the migrated EC2 instance fails the health check. The source VM runs Windows Server 2016 with a static IP. What is the most likely cause?

A.The security group does not allow inbound RDP.
B.The EBS volume type is not gp3.
C.The source VM's static IP configuration was not changed to DHCP.
D.The instance type is not compatible with Windows Server 2016.
AnswerC

AWS MGN requires the migrated instance to use DHCP; a static IP carried over from the source VM prevents the EC2 instance from obtaining its network configuration, failing the post-cutover health check. Changing the source VM to DHCP before cutover satisfies this constraint.

Why this answer

When migrating a Windows VM with a static IP using AWS MGN, the source VM must be configured to use DHCP before migration, because AWS relies on DHCP for IP assignment. If the static IP configuration persists, the EC2 instance will not obtain an IP address, causing the health check to fail. Option A is incorrect because security groups do not affect DHCP-based IP assignment.

Option B is incorrect because the EBS volume type (e.g., gp3) does not impact health checks. Option D is incorrect because the instance type is not related to DHCP configuration; Windows Server 2016 is compatible with most current instance types.

173
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a web application to AWS. The application uses a three-tier architecture with a web server, application server, and MySQL database. The company wants to ensure high availability by deploying across multiple Availability Zones. The web and application servers are stateless. Which solution provides the HIGHEST availability with the LEAST administrative effort?

A.Deploy web and application servers on EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group across two AZs with an Application Load Balancer. Use Multi-AZ Amazon RDS for MySQL.
B.Deploy web and application servers on EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group in one AZ. Use Amazon Route 53 latency-based routing to another region.
C.Deploy web, application, and database on a single large EC2 instance in one AZ. Take snapshots every hour.
D.Deploy web and application servers on EC2 instances in two AZs with Elastic IP addresses. Use Amazon Route 53 with health checks to route traffic.
AnswerA

An Auto Scaling group spanning two AZs behind an Application Load Balancer removes single points of failure for the stateless tiers, while Multi-AZ Amazon RDS handles database failover automatically. This delivers the highest availability with the least administrative effort, as failover is managed by AWS.

Why this answer

Deploying web and application servers in an Auto Scaling group across two AZs behind an Application Load Balancer, and using Multi-AZ Amazon RDS for MySQL, provides high availability with minimal administrative effort. The ALB distributes traffic, Auto Scaling maintains capacity, and Multi-AZ RDS automatically fails over to a standby in another AZ. This is a fully managed, highly available architecture.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the difference between high availability (multi-AZ) and disaster recovery (multi-region), and candidates may choose cross-region routing or manual failover solutions that require more effort and do not provide automatic recovery.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because deploying in one AZ and using Route 53 latency-based routing to another region does not provide high availability within the region; a single AZ failure would take down the application, and cross-region routing adds complexity. Option C is wrong because a single EC2 instance is a single point of failure, and hourly snapshots do not provide high availability; recovery would take time. Option D is wrong because using Elastic IP addresses with Route 53 health checks requires manual failover and does not automatically scale or replace failed instances; it also lacks a load balancer for distributing traffic across healthy instances.

174
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a critical application from on-premises to AWS. The application uses a shared file system for user uploads and logs. The company wants a highly available, durable, and low-latency solution. Which AWS storage service should the company use?

A.Amazon EFS
B.Amazon EBS
C.Amazon FSx for Windows File Server
D.Amazon S3
AnswerA

Amazon EFS provides a shared, POSIX-compliant NFS file system that multiple EC2 instances across Availability Zones can mount concurrently, meeting the shared-uploads-and-logs requirement. Its regional, replicated design delivers the durability and high availability demanded, while general-purpose performance mode keeps latency low for file operations.

Why this answer

Amazon EFS is a fully managed, elastic NFS file system that can be mounted concurrently by multiple EC2 instances and containers across Availability Zones, providing high availability, durability (11 nines), and low-latency shared access. It is purpose-built for shared file workloads like user uploads and logs, and it scales automatically without provisioning. This matches the requirement for a highly available, durable, low-latency shared file system.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the confusion between block (EBS), file (EFS/FSx), and object (S3) storage — candidates who pick S3 for 'shared' workloads miss that S3 is not a POSIX file system and cannot be mounted natively.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because Amazon EBS volumes attach to a single EC2 instance (except Multi-Attach io1/io2 in limited cases) and are Availability Zone-scoped, so they cannot serve as a shared, highly available file system across instances. Option C is wrong because FSx for Windows File Server is designed for Windows SMB workloads and Active Directory integration; it is not the default choice for a generic Linux/NFS shared file system and may be costlier or mismatched. Option D is wrong because Amazon S3 is object storage accessed via HTTP APIs, not a POSIX file system, so it cannot be mounted as a shared file system for low-latency random file operations without additional layers like Mountpoint for S3.

175
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a stateful web application to AWS. The application currently runs on a single on-premises server and uses local storage for session data. The company wants to make the application highly available and scalable. What should the solutions architect do?

A.Store session data in a Multi-AZ Amazon RDS database and use Route 53 with health checks
B.Use an Application Load Balancer with sticky sessions and an Auto Scaling group
C.Use a larger EC2 instance to handle all traffic and take regular snapshots
D.Migrate session data to Amazon ElastiCache or DynamoDB, then use an Auto Scaling group behind an ALB
AnswerD

Moving session state into ElastiCache or DynamoDB externalises it from the instance, so any instance in the Auto Scaling group can serve any request. The ALB distributes traffic, delivering the required high availability and horizontal scalability.

Why this answer

Moving session state to ElastiCache or DynamoDB makes the application stateless, enabling Auto Scaling. Sticky sessions on an ALB are a workaround but do not provide full statelessness. Using a larger instance does not provide high availability.

Multi-AZ RDS for session data is not ideal for high-frequency session access.

176
Multi-Selectmedium

A company is migrating a legacy application to AWS and wants to use a containerized architecture. The application requires persistent storage that can be shared across multiple containers in an Amazon ECS cluster. Which TWO storage solutions should the company consider? (Choose TWO.)

Select 2 answers
A.Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3)
B.Amazon Elastic File System (EFS)
C.Amazon FSx for Lustre
D.Amazon Elastic Block Store (EBS)
E.Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
AnswersB, C

Amazon EFS provides a shared, elastic NFS file system that multiple containers across an ECS cluster can mount concurrently, satisfying the persistent shared-storage requirement. It scales automatically and supports both EC2 and Fargate launch types.

Why this answer

Amazon EFS (B) is correct because it is a fully managed, elastic NFS file system that can be mounted simultaneously by multiple EC2 instances and ECS tasks across Availability Zones, providing the shared persistent storage the application needs. Amazon FSx for Lustre (C) is also correct because it is a high-performance, POSIX-compliant shared file system designed for compute-intensive workloads, and it can be mounted concurrently by many containers in an ECS cluster. Amazon S3 (A) is object storage accessed via HTTP APIs rather than a mountable shared file system, so it does not natively provide the shared persistent volume semantics required.

Amazon EBS (D) provides block storage that attaches to a single EC2 instance at a time and cannot be shared across multiple containers or hosts. Amazon RDS (E) is a managed relational database service, not a general-purpose shared storage layer for container file systems.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that EBS can be shared like a network file system across containers, when in fact EBS is single-instance block storage and only EFS/FSx provide true multi-attach shared file access.

177
MCQeasy

A company plans to modernize an existing .NET Framework 4.7 application running on Windows Server 2012 R2. The company wants to move to a containerized architecture on AWS with minimal code changes. Which service should the company use to meet these requirements?

A.AWS App2Container (A2C)
B.AWS Serverless Application Model (SAM)
C.AWS Copilot
D.AWS Migration Hub
AnswerA

App2Container analyses running .NET Framework applications, containerises them and generates ECS or EKS deployment artefacts with minimal code changes. This directly satisfies the containerised AWS requirement while avoiding the re-architecture that replatforming tools or manual containerisation would demand.

Why this answer

AWS App2Container (A2C) is specifically designed to containerize existing .NET Framework applications running on Windows Server with minimal code changes. It analyzes the application, generates Docker images, and produces CloudFormation templates for deployment on Amazon ECS or EKS, directly meeting the requirement to modernize a .NET Framework 4.7 application to a containerized architecture without significant refactoring.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse AWS App2Container with AWS Copilot or SAM, assuming any AWS container tool can handle existing .NET Framework applications, but only A2C provides the automated analysis and containerization of legacy Windows applications with minimal code changes.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B (AWS SAM) is wrong because it is a framework for building serverless applications using AWS Lambda and API Gateway, not for containerizing existing .NET Framework applications; it requires rewriting the application into a serverless architecture, which contradicts the 'minimal code changes' requirement. Option C (AWS Copilot) is wrong because it is a CLI tool for deploying containerized applications on Amazon ECS or App Runner, but it assumes the application is already containerized and does not provide analysis or containerization of existing .NET Framework binaries. Option D (AWS Migration Hub) is wrong because it is a tracking and monitoring service for migration progress across multiple tools, not a tool that performs containerization or code transformation.

178
MCQhard

A company is using AWS DMS to migrate a SQL Server database to Amazon Redshift. The initial full load completed, but the ongoing replication task failed with the error shown. What is the MOST likely cause?

A.The DMS task is not configured to use a task log for troubleshooting.
B.The source SQL Server transaction log has not been backed up or truncated, causing it to become full.
C.The target Redshift table does not have a primary key defined for the DMS task to apply changes.
D.The DMS task is using a full LOB mode, which is not supported for Redshift targets.
AnswerB

A full transaction log halts SQL Server's ability to record further changes, so DMS change data capture cannot read new log records and the replication task fails. The stem's ongoing replication failure, following a successful full load, points to log growth from unbacked-up or untruncated logs rather than connectivity or permissions.

Why this answer

The error indicates that AWS DMS cannot read the source SQL Server transaction log to capture ongoing changes. This typically occurs when the transaction log is full because it has not been backed up or truncated, preventing DMS from reading new log records for continuous replication. DMS relies on the source database's transaction log for CDC (Change Data Capture), and a full log blocks this process.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse a target-side issue (like missing primary key or unsupported LOB mode) with a source-side transaction log problem, because the error message explicitly mentions 'transaction log' but test-takers often overlook the source database context.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because the task log is used for debugging and monitoring, but its absence does not cause the replication task to fail with a transaction log error; the error message specifically points to a log read issue, not a missing log configuration. Option C is wrong because while a primary key is recommended for target tables in DMS tasks to support ongoing replication, its absence would cause a different error (e.g., 'No primary key defined') and not a transaction log failure. Option D is wrong because full LOB mode is supported for Redshift targets in DMS; the error is unrelated to LOB handling and instead points to a source-side transaction log problem.

179
MCQhard

A company is migrating a legacy .NET application to AWS. The application uses Windows authentication and has a dependency on a local file system. The company wants to minimize code changes. Which combination of services should be used?

A.Amazon EC2 Windows instances with Amazon EFS
B.AWS Elastic Beanstalk with Amazon EFS
C.Amazon Lightsail with local instance storage
D.Amazon EC2 Windows instances with Amazon FSx for Windows File Server
AnswerD

EC2 Windows instances preserve Windows authentication (Kerberos/NTLM) unchanged, while Amazon FSx for Windows File Server provides SMB shares with NTFS ACLs, replacing the local file system dependency. Together they satisfy the minimal-code-change constraint because the .NET application sees the same authentication and file path semantics.

Why this answer

The application uses Windows authentication and depends on a local file system, so the target must support native Windows ACLs and SMB. Amazon EC2 Windows instances provide the Windows OS, and Amazon FSx for Windows File Server provides a fully managed SMB file system with Active Directory integration, preserving Windows authentication and file semantics with minimal code changes.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the EFS-vs-FSx distinction — candidates pick EFS because it is the default managed file service, forgetting EFS is NFS-only and cannot serve Windows authentication.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because Amazon EFS is a Linux NFS file system and does not support Windows ACLs or SMB, so Windows authentication and file permissions would break. Option B is wrong because Elastic Beanstalk with EFS still uses NFS and does not provide Windows authentication or SMB semantics. Option C is wrong because Lightsail with local instance storage is not a managed Windows file service, does not integrate with AD, and local storage is ephemeral and not shared across instances.

180
MCQhard

A company is migrating a critical 3-tier application to AWS. The application consists of a web tier, an application tier, and a PostgreSQL database. The web and application tiers are stateless and run on Linux. The company has deployed the web tier on EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB) across two Availability Zones. The application tier is deployed on EC2 instances in an Auto Scaling group across two Availability Zones. The PostgreSQL database is migrated to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL with Multi-AZ deployment. The application uses sticky sessions (session affinity) to maintain user sessions on the web tier. After migration, users report that they are frequently logged out and lose session data. The web tier logs show that requests are being routed to different web instances. What is the MOST likely cause of this issue?

A.The target group for the web tier does not have sticky sessions (session affinity) enabled
B.The ALB is configured to disable cross-zone load balancing, causing uneven traffic distribution
C.The idle timeout of the ALB is set too low, causing sessions to expire
D.The web tier should use a Network Load Balancer (NLB) instead of an ALB for sticky sessions
AnswerA

The ALB target group lacks stickiness, so the load balancer distributes each request independently across web instances. Without session affinity, users hit different instances and lose session state, matching the reported logouts and the stem's sticky-session requirement.

Why this answer

The most likely cause is that the ALB target group does not have sticky sessions enabled. Sticky sessions (session affinity) ensure that all requests from a user during a session are routed to the same target. Without it, the ALB distributes requests across multiple instances, causing session loss.

The application relies on sticky sessions, so this misconfiguration directly explains the symptoms.

Exam trap

The trap is blaming the load balancer type (ALB vs NLB) or timeout settings, when the core issue is a missing sticky session configuration on the target group; candidates often overlook that ALB supports sticky sessions natively.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because disabling cross-zone load balancing affects traffic distribution across AZs but does not cause session loss if sticky sessions are enabled. Option C is wrong because idle timeout affects long-lived connections, but the symptom of frequent logouts across different instances points to session affinity, not timeout. Option D is wrong because ALB supports sticky sessions; NLB is not required and would not solve the issue if sticky sessions are not enabled.

181
MCQeasy

A company is planning a hybrid cloud migration and needs to establish a dedicated network connection between its on-premises data center and AWS with consistent low latency. Which AWS service should be used?

A.AWS Direct Connect
B.AWS Client VPN
C.AWS Transit Gateway
D.AWS Site-to-Site VPN
AnswerA

AWS Direct Connect provisions a dedicated private network link from on-premises equipment to an AWS location, bypassing the public internet. This delivers consistent low latency and predictable bandwidth, satisfying the hybrid migration requirement for a dedicated connection, unlike VPN tunnels that traverse shared internet paths.

Why this answer

AWS Direct Connect provides a dedicated private network connection from on-premises to AWS, offering consistent low latency. Option A is correct for this reason. Option B (AWS Client VPN) is incorrect because it is designed for individual remote clients, not a dedicated connection.

Option C (AWS Transit Gateway) is incorrect as it is a hub for connecting networks, not a direct connection method. Option D (AWS Site-to-Site VPN) is incorrect because it uses the public internet and does not provide dedicated bandwidth or consistent low latency.

182
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a legacy on-premises application to AWS. The application uses a shared file system for user home directories. Which AWS service should the company use to minimize changes to the application while providing scalable, highly available file storage?

A.Amazon FSx for Lustre
B.Amazon EBS
C.Amazon S3
D.Amazon EFS
AnswerD

Amazon EFS provides a POSIX-compliant NFSv4 file system that mounts natively on Linux, so the legacy application's existing file paths and locking semantics remain unchanged. Its managed, multi-AZ design delivers the scalable, highly available shared storage the stem requires, minimising migration effort compared with re-architecting onto object or block storage.

Why this answer

(Amazon EFS) is correct because it provides a scalable, fully managed NFS file system that can be mounted by multiple EC2 instances, minimizing application changes. Option A (FSx for Lustre) is for high-performance computing, not general file sharing. Option B (EBS) is block storage attached to a single instance.

Option C (S3) is object storage, not a file system.

183
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a legacy on-premises application to AWS. The application requires a relational database with Oracle compatibility and the ability to run read replicas across multiple Availability Zones. Which AWS service should the company use to minimize migration effort?

A.Amazon RDS for MySQL
B.Amazon EC2 with self-managed Oracle
C.Amazon DynamoDB
D.Amazon RDS for Oracle
AnswerD

Amazon RDS for Oracle runs the Oracle engine natively, so the existing schema, PL/SQL and drivers migrate unchanged. Multi-AZ deployments provide synchronous standby across Availability Zones, and read replicas can be added, minimising migration effort.

Why this answer

Amazon RDS for Oracle provides a managed Oracle database with Oracle compatibility and supports read replicas across multiple Availability Zones, minimizing migration effort. Option A is wrong because Amazon RDS for MySQL does not offer Oracle compatibility. Option B is wrong because Amazon EC2 with self-managed Oracle requires more operational overhead.

Option C is wrong because Amazon DynamoDB is a NoSQL database, not relational.

184
MCQhard

A company is migrating a large-scale data analytics workload from on-premises to AWS. The workload uses Apache Spark to process terabytes of data daily. The company wants to use Amazon EMR for the migration. The current on-premises cluster has 20 nodes, each with 64 vCPUs and 256 GB of RAM. The data is stored in HDFS on the cluster. The company wants to minimize costs while maintaining performance. The data sources are in Amazon S3 and on-premises. The company has set up a dedicated AWS Direct Connect connection. Which EMR configuration should the company use?

A.Use EMR with EC2 instances of similar size (e.g., r5.8xlarge) and store data in Amazon S3 using EMRFS.
B.Use EMR with Graviton-based instances and store intermediate data in HDFS on EBS volumes.
C.Use EMR with a mix of On-Demand and Spot Instances, and use S3 for all data storage.
D.Use AWS Glue to run the Spark jobs with the same resource configuration.
AnswerA

Correct. Using EMR with r5.8xlarge instances closely matches the on-premises resources (64 vCPUs, 256 GB RAM per node) and using S3 with EMRFS eliminates HDFS overhead, reducing costs and management effort while maintaining performance via Direct Connect.

Why this answer

It directly maps the on-premises cluster capacity to equivalent EC2 instances (r5.8xlarge provides 32 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM, so two per node would match the 64 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM). Storing data in S3 via EMRFS eliminates HDFS management and leverages S3 durability and scalability. This configuration minimizes costs by avoiding over-provisioning and using S3 for cost-effective storage, while maintaining performance through Direct Connect for data transfer.

Using EMR with similar instance sizes ensures the Spark jobs run efficiently without reconfiguration. Other options introduce unnecessary complexity or higher costs: Option B uses Graviton-based instances which may require code changes, and storing intermediate data on EBS volumes incurs additional costs and management overhead. Option C mixes On-Demand and Spot Instances, which can reduce costs but still requires cluster management and does not align with the goal of minimizing costs while maintaining performance as effectively as option A.

Option D uses AWS Glue, which is a fully managed service but may not provide the same level of control or performance for large-scale workloads; it may also be more expensive for sustained high-volume processing compared to EMR with reserved capacity.

185
Multi-Selecthard

A company is migrating a large e-commerce platform to AWS using a lift-and-shift approach. The application consists of a web tier, application tier, and a MySQL database. After migration, users report intermittent slow page loads. The operations team notices high CPU utilization on the application tier instances. Which THREE steps should the team take to address the performance issues?

Select 3 answers
A.Implement Amazon CloudFront to cache static content and reduce load on the web tier.
B.Create an Amazon RDS read replica for the MySQL database and route read queries to it.
C.Replace the current application tier instances with larger instance types.
D.Move the MySQL database to Amazon RDS for MySQL and enable Multi-AZ deployment.
E.Configure an Auto Scaling group for the application tier to scale based on CPU utilization.
AnswersA, B, E

Reduces requests to the origin servers.

Why this answer

Implementing Amazon CloudFront to cache static content offloads requests from the web tier, reducing the number of dynamic requests that reach the application tier. This directly lowers CPU utilization on the application instances by minimizing the processing overhead for repeated static asset deliveries.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates often confuse database-level solutions (like Multi-AZ or read replicas) with application-tier CPU issues, or they default to vertical scaling (larger instances) instead of recognizing the need for horizontal scaling and content caching.

186
Multi-Selecteasy

A company wants to migrate a legacy .NET application to AWS. The application uses Windows authentication and requires a shared file system. Which TWO AWS services should the company use to modernize this application? (Choose two.)

Select 2 answers
A.Amazon FSx for Windows File Server
B.AWS Elastic Beanstalk
C.Amazon S3
D.Amazon EBS
E.AWS Lambda
AnswersA, B

FSx for Windows File Server provides SMB shares with native NTFS permissions and Active Directory integration, so the legacy .NET application keeps Windows authentication and a shared file system without code changes. It satisfies the shared-storage constraint that Linux-based Amazon EFS cannot meet for this workload.

Why this answer

Amazon FSx for Windows File Server (A) is correct because it provides a fully managed native Windows file system supporting SMB protocol, NTFS permissions, and Active Directory integration, which satisfies the application's Windows authentication and shared file system requirements. AWS Elastic Beanstalk (B) is correct because it supports deploying and scaling .NET applications on Windows Server environments (IIS), allowing the legacy app to be modernized with minimal code changes while preserving Windows authentication. Amazon S3 (C) is object storage and does not provide SMB shares or native Windows ACL/authentication semantics needed for a shared file system.

Amazon EBS (D) provides block storage volumes attached to a single EC2 instance, not a shared file system across multiple instances. AWS Lambda (E) is a serverless compute service that does not support Windows authentication or persistent shared file system access in this legacy .NET context.

187
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a stateful application that uses local storage on EC2. They want to modernize to a stateless architecture using Amazon EFS for shared storage. What is the best approach to migrate the existing data?

A.Use AWS Fsx for Lustre with S3 as data repository
B.Copy data from local storage to EFS using AWS DataSync during a maintenance window
C.Detach the EBS volume and attach it to the new EC2 instance
D.Create an EBS snapshot and restore it on the new instance
AnswerB

AWS DataSync performs incremental, scheduled or one-off copies over the network with integrity verification, moving the local EC2 data onto EFS during the maintenance window. This satisfies the constraint of preserving existing stateful data while the application becomes stateless.

Why this answer

The best approach is to use AWS DataSync to copy data from the local EC2 instance storage to Amazon EFS during a maintenance window, then reconfigure the application to use EFS as shared storage. Option A (AWS FSx for Lustre with S3) is overcomplicated and not appropriate for a simple shared file system migration to EFS. Option C (detach EBS volume and attach to new instance) is not stateless and does not enable shared access.

Option D (EBS snapshot restore) retains the stateful nature and does not provide shared storage.

188
MCQhard

A company is migrating a high-traffic web application to AWS. The application currently runs on physical servers in a data center and uses a shared storage area network (SAN) for storing static assets. The company wants to modernize the application to be highly available and scalable across multiple Availability Zones. The static assets are accessed frequently and must be served with low latency globally. Which solution should the company implement?

A.Deploy Amazon EFS in multiple Availability Zones and mount it to EC2 instances.
B.Use Amazon EBS volumes replicated across Availability Zones with Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling.
C.Store static assets in Amazon S3 and use Amazon CloudFront for global content delivery.
D.Use AWS Storage Gateway to cache on-premises SAN data to AWS.
AnswerC

Amazon S3 provides durable, scalable object storage for static assets, and Amazon CloudFront is a global content delivery network that caches content at edge locations, reducing latency for users worldwide. This combination decouples storage from compute, enables high availability across multiple Availability Zones, and supports global low-latency access. It aligns with modernizing the application to be scalable and highly available.

Why this answer

Storing static assets in Amazon S3 and serving them via Amazon CloudFront provides a highly available, scalable, and globally distributed solution. S3 offers durable storage, and CloudFront caches content at edge locations for low latency. Other options do not provide global content delivery or are not suited for static asset serving at scale.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that a shared file system like Amazon EFS is sufficient for static assets, but it lacks the global edge caching that CloudFront provides.

189
MCQeasy

A company is moving its application from on-premises to AWS. They want to use the same third-party software licenses on AWS. Which AWS purchasing option allows them to bring their own licenses?

A.Savings Plans
B.Dedicated Hosts
C.Spot Instances
D.Reserved Instances
AnswerB

Dedicated Hosts give you a physical server with visibility and control over socket and core allocation, which satisfies bring-your-own-licence requirements tied to physical cores or sockets. Other purchasing options, such as Savings Plans or Reserved Instances, do not provide that host-level licensing visibility.

Why this answer

(Dedicated Hosts) is correct because it provides visibility and control over physical servers, allowing you to use your own licenses per socket/core. Option A (Savings Plans) is just a billing discount. Option C (Spot Instances) are interruptible.

Option D (Reserved Instances) is also a billing discount and does not provide the license flexibility of Dedicated Hosts.

190
MCQeasy

A company wants to modernize a legacy monolithic application by decomposing it into microservices. The application handles HTTP requests and uses a MySQL database. The company needs to decouple the microservices and improve scalability. Which AWS services should be used?

A.Amazon SQS for decoupling and Amazon Aurora MySQL for data.
B.Amazon S3 for decoupling and Amazon RDS for MySQL.
C.Amazon SQS for decoupling and Amazon DynamoDB for data.
D.Amazon Kinesis Data Streams for decoupling and Amazon RDS for MySQL.
AnswerA

Amazon SQS provides asynchronous, queue-based decoupling so microservices scale independently without blocking callers, satisfying the decoupling and scalability requirements. Aurora MySQL is wire-compatible with MySQL, so the existing database engine and queries migrate without rewriting, meeting the stem's MySQL constraint.

Why this answer

Amazon SQS is a fully managed message queuing service that decouples microservices, allowing asynchronous communication and improved scalability. Amazon Aurora MySQL is a MySQL-compatible relational database that provides high performance and scalability, making it suitable for the existing MySQL workload. Together, they meet the requirements of decoupling and data management without re-architecting the database engine.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the confusion between message queuing (SQS) and streaming (Kinesis), and between relational (Aurora/RDS) and NoSQL (DynamoDB) databases, expecting candidates to match the right service to the decoupling and data requirements.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because Amazon S3 is object storage, not a message queue, and cannot decouple microservices; it is used for storing and retrieving data, not for asynchronous messaging. Option C is wrong because while SQS correctly decouples, DynamoDB is a NoSQL database and would require migrating from MySQL, which is not specified as a requirement and may involve significant changes. Option D is wrong because Kinesis Data Streams is designed for real-time streaming data, not for decoupling microservices in a request-response pattern; it is more suited for analytics and data ingestion, and using RDS for MySQL is fine but the decoupling component is incorrect.

191
Multi-Selecteasy

A company is migrating a web application to AWS and wants to use a microservices architecture. The application needs to communicate synchronously via REST APIs. Which TWO AWS services should the architect consider for implementing API communication?

Select 2 answers
A.Application Load Balancer
B.AWS Step Functions
C.Amazon API Gateway
D.AWS AppSync
E.Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS)
AnswersA, C

An Application Load Balancer routes HTTP and HTTPS requests to microservice targets, supporting path- and host-based rules for synchronous REST traffic. It satisfies the REST API communication requirement at layer 7, unlike Network Load Balancer, which balances TCP without HTTP awareness.

Why this answer

Option A (Application Load Balancer) is correct because an ALB operates at Layer 7 and can route HTTP/HTTPS REST requests to microservices targets such as ECS tasks, Lambda functions, or EC2 instances, providing synchronous request/response communication. Option C (Amazon API Gateway) is correct because it is a fully managed service purpose-built for creating, publishing, and securing REST APIs, and it natively supports synchronous REST communication to backend microservices. Option B (AWS Step Functions) is incorrect because it orchestrates workflows asynchronously through state machines rather than providing synchronous REST API endpoints.

Option D (AWS AppSync) is incorrect because it is designed for GraphQL APIs, not REST APIs. Option E (Amazon SQS) is incorrect because it is an asynchronous message queueing service and does not provide synchronous REST API communication.

192
MCQhard

A company is modernizing a legacy application by breaking it into microservices. The application uses a shared MySQL database. The team wants to refactor the database to use Amazon DynamoDB for better scalability. Which migration strategy should be used?

A.Rehost the database to Amazon RDS
B.Use the Strangler Fig pattern to incrementally migrate data to DynamoDB
C.Replatform the database to Amazon Aurora
D.Retire the existing database and switch to DynamoDB
AnswerB

The Strangler Fig pattern routes reads and writes incrementally to DynamoDB while the MySQL database remains authoritative, allowing dual-write or change-data-capture synchronisation. This satisfies the refactor-to-DynamoDB goal without a risky big-bang cutover, since each migrated capability can be validated before decommissioning legacy tables.

Why this answer

The Strangler Fig pattern is the correct migration strategy because it allows for incremental and iterative migration of data and business logic from the legacy MySQL database to Amazon DynamoDB without a full cutover. This approach minimizes risk and enables the team to gradually refactor the application while maintaining continuous operation. Option A (rehost to Amazon RDS) would still use a relational database and not achieve the goal of moving to DynamoDB.

Option C (replatform to Amazon Aurora) also retains a relational model. Option D (retire the existing database and switch to DynamoDB) is risky as it requires a complete cutover without incremental transition.

193
Multi-Selectmedium

A company is migrating a legacy e-commerce platform to AWS. The platform includes a MySQL database that experiences heavy read traffic. The company wants to improve performance and reduce latency for read operations. Which TWO actions should the solutions architect take?

Select 2 answers
A.Enable Multi-AZ on the RDS instance.
B.Shard the database across multiple RDS instances.
C.Upgrade to Provisioned IOPS for the database.
D.Add read replicas to the RDS MySQL database.
E.Use Amazon ElastiCache in front of the database.
AnswersD, E

RDS MySQL read replicas use asynchronous replication to serve read-only queries from separate instances, offloading the primary and reducing read latency. This directly satisfies the heavy read-traffic requirement by horizontally scaling read capacity without changing application write logic.

Why this answer

Option D is correct because RDS MySQL read replicas use asynchronous replication to offload read-only queries from the primary instance, directly improving read performance and reducing latency for heavy read traffic. Option E is correct because Amazon ElastiCache (Redis or Memcached) caches frequently accessed query results in memory, serving reads in microseconds and dramatically reducing the load and latency on the MySQL database. Option A is not correct because Multi-AZ provides high availability through a synchronous standby that does not serve read traffic, so it does not improve read performance.

Option B is not correct because sharding is a complex manual partitioning strategy typically used for write scaling or very large datasets, not the simplest fix for read-heavy latency. Option C is not correct because Provisioned IOPS improves storage throughput and IOPS for the database volume but does not scale read capacity beyond what a single instance can serve.

194
Multi-Selecthard

A company is planning to modernize a legacy Java application that runs on a single on-premises server. The application uses a proprietary file-based storage system. The company wants to migrate to AWS with the following goals: reduce operational overhead, improve availability, and minimize code changes. Which TWO strategies should the company use? (Choose two.)

Select 2 answers
A.Use AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) to migrate the application server to Amazon EC2
B.Use Amazon EFS to replace the proprietary file-based storage
C.Migrate the proprietary storage to Amazon S3
D.Migrate the proprietary storage to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL
E.Refactor the application into microservices and deploy on Amazon EKS
AnswersA, B

AWS Application Migration Service replicates the on-premises server block-level and launches it on Amazon EC2, so the Java application runs without modification. This lifts operational overhead to AWS and enables multi-AZ resilience while minimising code changes.

Why this answer

AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) enables lift-and-shift of the application server to Amazon EC2 with minimal code changes, reducing operational overhead. Amazon EFS provides a managed NFS file system that can replace the proprietary file-based storage without code modifications, improving availability. Option D (RDS) is incorrect because migrating file-based data to a relational database would require significant application changes, contradicting the goal of minimizing code changes.

Exam trap

Candidates often assume that any managed storage can replace file-based storage without code changes. However, Amazon EFS is a drop-in NFS replacement, while RDS requires application modifications.

195
MCQeasy

An organization is planning to migrate a large number of on-premises virtual machines to AWS. The migration must be automated and support replication of live workloads with minimal downtime. Which AWS service is best suited for this task?

A.AWS DataSync
B.AWS Application Migration Service (MGN)
C.AWS Server Migration Service (SMS)
D.AWS Database Migration Service (DMS)
AnswerB

AWS Application Migration Service replicates live source servers continuously at block level, launching them on AWS as EC2 instances. This satisfies the stem's automation and minimal-downtime constraints: agents install automatically, and cutover occurs in minutes, unlike snapshot-based tools requiring manual orchestration or extended outages.

Why this answer

(AWS Application Migration Service) is correct as it automates lift-and-shift migration with continuous replication and cutover. Option A (AWS DataSync) is for data transfer, not live VM replication. Option C (AWS Server Migration Service) is legacy and less capable.

Option D (AWS Database Migration Service) is for databases, not general VM migration.

196
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a multi-tier web application to AWS. The application uses a commercial database that requires a license. The company wants to reduce licensing costs. Which migration strategy should be considered?

A.Rehost the database to EC2 with the same database software
B.Replatform the database to Amazon RDS for an open-source engine like PostgreSQL
C.Repurchase a Software as a Service (SaaS) alternative
D.Refactor the application to use Amazon DynamoDB
AnswerB

Replatforming swaps the licensed commercial engine for Amazon RDS PostgreSQL, eliminating per-core licence fees while retaining managed backups, patching and Multi-AZ. This satisfies the cost-reduction goal without the re-architecting effort of refactoring the application's data layer.

Why this answer

Replatforming to Amazon RDS for an open-source engine like PostgreSQL eliminates the commercial database license cost because PostgreSQL is open-source and RDS is a managed service. This aligns with the goal of reducing licensing costs while minimizing application changes. The company can still use a relational database with similar capabilities, avoiding the need for a full refactor or repurchase.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that any migration to AWS automatically reduces licensing costs, but only strategies that change the database engine to open-source or use managed services without commercial licenses achieve that goal.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because rehosting to EC2 with the same commercial database software does not reduce licensing costs; the company would still need to pay for the same licenses, and may incur additional costs for managing the database on EC2. Option C is wrong because repurchasing a SaaS alternative involves moving to a different licensing model, which may not necessarily reduce costs and could introduce new subscription fees; it also requires significant changes to the application and business processes. Option D is wrong because refactoring to DynamoDB is a major architectural change that may not be feasible for a multi-tier web application with relational data requirements, and it could increase development and migration costs, outweighing licensing savings.

197
MCQeasy

A company is migrating a web application to AWS and wants to decouple the frontend and backend tiers to improve scalability. The frontend runs on Amazon EC2 behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB). The backend processes orders asynchronously. Which service should the company use to decouple the tiers?

A.Amazon MQ
B.Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)
C.Amazon Simple Notification Service (SNS)
D.Amazon Kinesis Data Streams
AnswerB

Amazon SQS decouples the tiers by letting the frontend enqueue order messages while backend workers poll and process them asynchronously. This buffers traffic spikes, allows independent scaling of each tier, and prevents frontend requests from blocking on backend processing, satisfying the asynchronous order requirement.

Why this answer

For decoupling frontend and backend asynchronously, Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) is the appropriate service. It allows the frontend to send order messages to a queue, and the backend components poll and process them independently. Option A (Amazon MQ) is a managed message broker for existing protocols like JMS, but SQS is simpler and more scalable for this use case.

Option C (Amazon SNS) is a pub/sub service, not designed for point-to-point decoupling with pull-based consumers. Option D (Amazon Kinesis Data Streams) is for real-time streaming data, not for decoupling web tiers.

198
Multi-Selecteasy

A company is planning to migrate its on-premises infrastructure to AWS. The company wants to assess the current environment and create a migration plan. Which TWO AWS services should be used for discovery and assessment?

Select 2 answers
A.AWS Server Migration Service (SMS)
B.AWS Migration Hub
C.Amazon CloudWatch
D.AWS Application Discovery Service
E.AWS Trusted Advisor
AnswersB, D

AWS Migration Hub provides a centralised view of application discovery and migration status across multiple tools, satisfying the need to assess the environment and track migration progress. It aggregates data from AWS Application Discovery Service and Migration Evaluator, letting the company plan migrations from one dashboard rather than per-service consoles.

Why this answer

AWS Application Discovery Service (D) is correct because it is purpose-built to discover on-premises servers and collect configuration, usage, and dependency data (via the agentless Discovery Connector or the Discovery Agent) that feeds migration planning. AWS Migration Hub (B) is correct because it provides a single place to track the migration status of applications across multiple migration tools, including discoveries from Application Discovery Service, which is exactly what is needed to build and monitor a migration plan. AWS Server Migration Service (A) is a migration/replication tool for moving VMs, not a discovery and assessment service.

Amazon CloudWatch (C) is a monitoring service for AWS and on-premises resources' metrics and logs, not an environment discovery tool. AWS Trusted Advisor (E) provides best-practice checks and recommendations for AWS accounts, not on-premises discovery or migration planning.

Exam trap

Candidates may assume AWS Server Migration Service (SMS) is a discovery tool because of its name, but it is actually a replication service used for migrating servers. Discovery is better handled by AWS Application Discovery Service.

199
MCQhard

A company is modernizing a .NET Framework application to run on AWS. The application currently uses Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) services. The company wants to minimize code changes and run on Linux. Which approach should the company take?

A.Use AWS App2Container to generate Windows containers and run on Amazon ECS with Windows.
B.Rewrite the WCF services as AWS Lambda functions using a custom runtime.
C.Port the application to .NET Core and deploy on Amazon ECS with Linux containers.
D.Containerize the application using AWS Fargate and run on Windows containers.
AnswerC

Porting to .NET Core enables the application to run on Linux, satisfying the platform constraint, while CoreWCF provides WCF service compatibility with minimal code changes. Amazon ECS with Linux containers then hosts the modernised workload, meeting both the "minimise code changes" and "run on Linux" requirements in the stem.

Why this answer

Migrating the .NET Framework application to .NET Core allows it to run on Linux with minimal code changes, as .NET Core is cross-platform. Deploying on Amazon ECS with Linux containers meets the requirement to run on Linux. Option A is incorrect because using AWS App2Container to generate Windows containers would still require Windows, not Linux.

Option B is incorrect because rewriting WCF services as AWS Lambda functions would require significant refactoring, not minimal code changes. Option D is incorrect because AWS Fargate is a compute platform, not a framework, and running Windows containers does not satisfy the requirement to run on Linux.

200
Multi-Selectmedium

A company is migrating its on-premises applications to AWS. The company has a mix of Windows and Linux servers. The migration team wants to automate the discovery of application dependencies and track the migration progress. Which TWO AWS services should the team use? (Choose TWO.)

Select 2 answers
A.AWS Systems Manager
B.AWS Config
C.AWS Application Discovery Service
D.AWS CloudTrail
E.AWS Migration Hub
AnswersC, E

AWS Application Discovery Service uses agentless or agent-based collection to map server dependencies, network connections and process data across both Windows and Linux hosts. This directly satisfies the stem's requirement to automate discovery of application dependencies before migration, feeding that inventory into Migration Hub for progress tracking.

Why this answer

AWS Application Discovery Service (option C) is correct because it is purpose-built to automatically discover on-premises servers (both Windows and Linux via the Discovery Agent or agentless VMware collector) and map application dependencies, network connections, and performance data to support migration planning. AWS Migration Hub (option E) is correct because it provides a single location to track the progress of application migrations across multiple AWS and partner migration tools, giving the team the migration-tracking capability they require. Together these two services directly address the stated goals of dependency discovery and progress tracking.

AWS Systems Manager (option A) is for operational management of EC2 and hybrid instances (patching, run commands, inventory), not for discovering on-premises application dependencies or tracking migrations. AWS Config (option B) evaluates and records resource configuration compliance, and AWS CloudTrail (option D) logs API activity for auditing — neither performs dependency discovery or migration progress tracking.

201
MCQhard

A company is modernizing its application by breaking a monolith into microservices on Amazon EKS. The application uses a shared PostgreSQL database. The company wants to implement a database-per-service pattern. The migration must be done with zero downtime. Which approach should the company use?

A.Implement the strangler fig pattern: gradually migrate functionality and data to new services.
B.Use AWS DMS with CDC to replicate the shared database to multiple target databases.
C.Use Amazon RDS read replicas to create separate databases for each service.
D.Create new databases for each service, migrate data during a maintenance window.
AnswerA

The strangler fig pattern incrementally routes functionality and its data to new microservices while the monolith keeps serving, avoiding a big-bang cutover. This gradual, reversible migration is what achieves zero downtime with a shared PostgreSQL database.

Why this answer

The strangler fig pattern incrementally extracts functionality from the monolith into new microservices, each with its own database, while keeping the monolith running. This allows zero-downtime migration because traffic is gradually shifted, and data can be migrated in phases with dual-write or CDC synchronization. It is the standard approach for decomposing a monolith into a database-per-service architecture without downtime.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that DMS or read replicas alone can achieve database-per-service zero-downtime migration, when an incremental strangler fig approach is required.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because AWS DMS with CDC replicates the shared database to multiple targets but does not address the architectural decomposition or zero-downtime cutover logic; it is a data replication tool, not a migration pattern. Option C is wrong because RDS read replicas are read-only copies of the same database, not separate databases per service, and do not support writes for each service. Option D is wrong because migrating data during a maintenance window implies downtime, violating the zero-downtime requirement.

202
MCQhard

A company is modernizing a monolithic application by decomposing it into microservices. The application currently uses a single MySQL database. The company wants to use a polyglot persistence approach, with different microservices using the most appropriate database type. The team has limited experience with NoSQL databases. Which strategy should the team use to minimize risk during the migration?

A.Rewrite the entire application as microservices using a new database for each service from the start
B.Use the strangler fig pattern to incrementally replace parts of the monolith with microservices, starting with a non-critical function
C.Migrate the entire monolith to a containerized application on Amazon ECS in one go
D.Use AWS DMS to replicate the monolith's database to multiple target databases simultaneously
AnswerB

The strangler fig pattern routes traffic incrementally to new microservices while the monolith keeps running, so the team can adopt unfamiliar NoSQL stores one bounded, non-critical function at a time and roll back easily, directly minimising migration risk.

Why this answer

The strangler fig pattern allows incremental migration by routing specific functionality to new microservices while the monolith continues to serve the rest. Starting with a non-critical function reduces risk because failures are contained and the team can gain NoSQL experience without impacting core business operations. This approach aligns with the AWS Well-Architected Framework's guidance on evolutionary architectures and minimizes blast radius during modernization.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that a full rewrite or lift-and-shift is faster, but the exam expects you to prioritize risk reduction and incremental modernization, especially when teams lack experience with new technologies.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because a full rewrite with new databases from the start introduces massive risk, requires simultaneous mastery of microservices and NoSQL, and often leads to project failure due to scope and complexity. Option C is wrong because containerizing the monolith in one go does not address polyglot persistence or microservices decomposition; it merely repackages the monolith and still requires a database migration, which is risky if done all at once. Option D is wrong because replicating the monolith's database to multiple targets via AWS DMS does not decompose the application or enable polyglot persistence per microservice; it creates data duplication and consistency challenges without architectural change.

203
MCQhard

A company is migrating a legacy monolithic application to AWS. The application consists of a web tier and a backend that uses a Microsoft SQL Server database. The company wants to modernize the application by decoupling the database from the application and moving to a managed database service. The migration must minimize downtime and ensure data consistency. Which strategy should be used?

A.Use native SQL Server backup and restore to move the database to Amazon RDS for SQL Server, scheduling a maintenance window for the cutover.
B.Use AWS Server Migration Service (SMS) to replicate the entire server, including the SQL Server database, to Amazon EC2, then migrate the database to RDS using native backup and restore.
C.Use AWS DataSync to copy the SQL Server database files to Amazon S3, then use AWS Glue to load the data into Amazon RDS for SQL Server.
D.Use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) with ongoing replication to migrate the SQL Server database to Amazon RDS for SQL Server, then refactor the application to use the RDS endpoint.
AnswerD

AWS DMS with ongoing replication allows continuous data replication from the on-premises SQL Server to Amazon RDS for SQL Server, minimizing downtime during cutover. After the initial full load, change data capture keeps the target in sync until the application is ready to switch. This approach ensures data consistency and supports modernization by moving to a managed database service.

Why this answer

AWS DMS with ongoing replication is the best strategy because it enables continuous data synchronization from the on-premises SQL Server to Amazon RDS for SQL Server, minimizing downtime and ensuring data consistency. It allows the application to be refactored to use the managed database endpoint after cutover. Other methods either cause downtime or do not support database migration effectively.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that a simple backup and restore is sufficient, but it causes downtime and does not handle ongoing changes, which is critical for minimal downtime.

204
Multi-Selectmedium

A company is planning a large-scale migration of hundreds of applications to AWS. Which TWO strategies should the architect consider to reduce migration risks?

Select 2 answers
A.Use only the rehosting strategy for all applications
B.Migrate all applications in a single wave to reduce coordination effort
C.Use a wave-based migration approach with defined groups and dependencies
D.Conduct a pilot migration of a small subset of applications
E.Roll back all migrations if any application experiences issues
AnswersC, D

Wave-based migration groups applications by dependency and business function, so each wave can be migrated, tested and rolled back independently. This directly limits blast radius across hundreds of applications, satisfying the stem's requirement to reduce migration risk rather than attempting a single cutover.

Why this answer

Option C is correct because a wave-based migration approach groups applications by dependencies, business criticality, and technical constraints, allowing the company to validate each wave before proceeding and limit the blast radius of any failures across hundreds of applications. Option D is correct because conducting a pilot migration of a small subset of applications lets the architect test the migration process, tooling (e.g., AWS Application Migration Service, AWS Database Migration Service), and runbooks on a low-risk sample, uncovering issues before committing the full portfolio. Option A is not appropriate because applying only rehosting to every application ignores the benefits of replatforming, refactoring, or repurchasing, and can carry forward technical debt and inefficiencies.

Option B is incorrect because migrating all applications in a single wave maximizes risk, since a failure in one application or shared dependency can disrupt the entire migration with no incremental validation. Option E is incorrect because rolling back all migrations whenever any single application has issues is an overreactive, all-or-nothing response that would halt progress; instead, issues should be isolated and remediated per application or wave.

205
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a batch processing workload to AWS. The workload runs a Java application that processes files from an S3 bucket. The company wants to minimize operational overhead. Which AWS service should the company use to run the Java application?

A.Amazon EC2
B.Amazon ECS with EC2 launch type
C.AWS Batch
D.AWS Lambda
AnswerD

AWS Lambda runs Java code without provisioning or managing servers, satisfying the minimise-operational-overhead constraint. It integrates natively with S3 event notifications, so uploaded files trigger processing automatically. For batch workloads with intermittent file arrivals, this event-driven model removes idle capacity and patching duties entirely, unlike EC2 or ECS, which require ongoing cluster management.

Why this answer

(AWS Lambda) is correct because it allows running Java code in response to S3 events with no server management, minimizing operational overhead. AWS Lambda supports Java runtime, can be triggered by S3 object creation events, and automatically scales. Options A (Amazon EC2) and B (Amazon ECS with EC2 launch type) require managing EC2 instances or cluster, increasing overhead.

Option C (AWS Batch) is designed for batch jobs but still requires compute environments (EC2 or Fargate) and is more complex than Lambda for simple file processing.

206
MCQeasy

A company is migrating its on-premises VMware VMs to AWS. The company wants to use the same management tools and maintain consistency. Which AWS service should be used for this migration?

A.AWS Server Migration Service (SMS)
B.AWS Snowball Edge
C.VMware Cloud on AWS
D.AWS Database Migration Service (DMS)
AnswerC

VMware Cloud on AWS runs the native vSphere stack on dedicated AWS hardware, so existing VMware management tools such as vCenter and vSphere Client keep working unchanged. That directly satisfies the requirement to maintain the same management tooling and operational consistency during migration.

Why this answer

VMware Cloud on AWS is the correct service because it runs the actual VMware SDDC (vSphere, vSAN, NSX) on AWS bare-metal infrastructure, allowing the company to keep using its existing VMware management tools like vCenter and vSphere Client while gaining AWS services. This directly satisfies the requirement to maintain tooling consistency during migration. AWS SMS and DMS are migration tools, not environments that preserve VMware management tooling, and Snowball Edge is a physical data-transfer device.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests whether candidates confuse migration tools (SMS, DMS, MGN) with target platforms (VMware Cloud on AWS); the phrase 'same management tools' is the tell that you need a VMware-preserving environment, not a migration service.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because AWS Server Migration Service (SMS) is a migration orchestration tool for moving VMs to AWS — it does not preserve VMware management tools after migration and has actually been deprecated in favor of AWS Application Migration Service (MGN). Option B is wrong because Snowball Edge is a ruggedized edge compute/storage device for bulk data transfer, not a VMware hosting platform. Option D is wrong because AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) migrates databases (homogeneous or heterogeneous), not VMware VMs, and provides no VMware management tooling.

207
MCQeasy

A company is migrating a monolithic application to AWS. The application currently runs on a single on-premises server and uses a MySQL database. The company wants to minimize changes to the application code during migration. Which migration strategy should the company use?

A.Refactor the application to use microservices and Amazon RDS.
B.Rehost the application on Amazon EC2 and migrate the database to Amazon RDS.
C.Replatform the application to use AWS Elastic Beanstalk and Amazon Aurora.
D.Repurchase the application by adopting a SaaS solution.
AnswerB

Rehosting lifts the application onto Amazon EC2 unchanged, while Amazon RDS runs MySQL with the same engine, so connection strings and SQL remain compatible. This minimises application code changes, which is the explicit constraint the company specified for migration.

Why this answer

Rehosting (lift-and-shift) moves the application to Amazon EC2 and the MySQL database to Amazon RDS with minimal or no code changes, which directly satisfies the requirement to minimize application code changes. This is the fastest migration path and preserves the existing monolithic architecture. Rehosting is the canonical 'minimize changes' strategy in the 7 Rs framework.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the 7 Rs by pairing 'minimize code changes' with the wrong R (e.g., replatform or refactor), so candidates must map the constraint precisely to rehost.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because refactoring to microservices requires significant code changes and re-architecture, contradicting the minimize-changes requirement. Option C is wrong because replatforming to Elastic Beanstalk and Aurora involves modifying the runtime environment and database engine, which may require code and configuration changes. Option D is wrong because repurchasing to a SaaS solution abandons the existing application entirely and requires integration work, not minimal change.

208
Multi-Selecteasy

A company is migrating a legacy .NET Framework 4.7 application to AWS. The application currently uses Windows Authentication and stores session state in-process. The company wants to minimize code changes and use AWS managed services. Which TWO strategies should the company adopt?

Select 2 answers
A.Migrate the application to run on Amazon EC2 instances joined to AWS Managed Microsoft AD.
B.Rewrite the application to .NET Core and deploy on AWS Elastic Beanstalk with Amazon RDS for SQL Server.
C.Store session data in Amazon ElastiCache for Redis using the Redis Session State Provider.
D.Use Amazon Cognito with an Active Directory connector for authentication.
E.Use Amazon DynamoDB to persist session state.
AnswersA, C

Joining EC2 instances to AWS Managed Microsoft AD preserves Windows Authentication (Kerberos) without rewriting the identity layer, and the managed domain removes self-managed domain controller overhead. This meets both constraints: minimal code change and use of an AWS managed service.

Why this answer

Option A is correct because joining Amazon EC2 instances to AWS Managed Microsoft AD preserves Windows Authentication (Kerberos/NTLM) for the legacy .NET Framework 4.7 app, allowing it to authenticate domain users without code changes while using a managed AWS directory service. Option C is correct because moving in-process session state to Amazon ElastiCache for Redis via the Redis Session State Provider requires only configuration changes (web.config) and no application rewrite, and ElastiCache is an AWS managed service. Option B is not appropriate because rewriting to .NET Core and migrating to Elastic Beanstalk with RDS for SQL Server involves significant code changes and does not directly address Windows Authentication.

Option D is not suitable because Amazon Cognito with an AD connector targets modern web/mobile identity federation rather than preserving existing Windows Authentication for a legacy .NET Framework application without changes. Option E is not correct because DynamoDB is not a drop-in session state provider for ASP.NET without custom code, and it does not address the Windows Authentication requirement.

209
Multi-Selecthard

A company is migrating a multi-tier e-commerce application to AWS. The application consists of a web tier, an application tier, and a MySQL database tier. The company wants to improve scalability and availability while reducing administrative overhead. Which THREE actions should the solutions architect take? (Select THREE.)

Select 3 answers
A.Migrate the MySQL database to Amazon RDS Multi-AZ
B.Use Amazon ElastiCache to cache session data
C.Use Amazon EFS for shared storage between web instances
D.Configure an Application Load Balancer and Auto Scaling group for the web tier
E.Use Spot Instances for all EC2 instances to reduce costs
AnswersA, B, D

Amazon RDS Multi-AZ maintains a synchronous standby in a second Availability Zone with automatic failover, satisfying the availability requirement. RDS also removes database patching, backups and replication administration, directly addressing the reduced administrative overhead constraint.

Why this answer

Option A is correct because Amazon RDS Multi-AZ maintains a synchronous standby replica in a second Availability Zone and automatically fails over the DNS endpoint during an AZ outage, which improves database availability while removing the administrative overhead of self-managed MySQL replication and patching. Option B is correct because storing session state in Amazon ElastiCache (Redis or Memcached) externalizes sessions from individual web instances, allowing any instance in the Auto Scaling group to serve any user request and enabling stateless, horizontally scalable web and application tiers. Option D is correct because an Application Load Balancer distributes HTTP/HTTPS traffic across targets in multiple AZs and an Auto Scaling group automatically replaces unhealthy instances and scales capacity with demand, directly delivering the required scalability and availability.

Option C is not appropriate here because Amazon EFS is a shared POSIX file system that is unnecessary once sessions are externalized to ElastiCache, and it adds latency and cost without addressing the stated goals. Option E is not appropriate because Spot Instances can be reclaimed with a two-minute interruption notice, making them unsuitable for all instances of a production e-commerce application; they should be limited to fault-tolerant, stateless workloads.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests whether candidates confuse EFS with ElastiCache for session state and whether they over-apply Spot Instances to production critical workloads, so picking EFS or Spot is the common error.

210
MCQhard

A company is migrating a large Hadoop cluster to Amazon EMR. The cluster uses HDFS for storage. The company wants to decouple compute and storage to reduce costs. Which approach should the company take?

A.Use Amazon S3 as the data store and EMRFS
B.Use Amazon FSx for Lustre
C.Use Amazon EFS for HDFS
D.Use EBS volumes for HDFS
AnswerA

EMRFS lets EMR read and write HDFS-compatible data directly in Amazon S3, so the cluster's storage layer persists independently of transient EC2 nodes. This decouples compute from storage, allowing clusters to be terminated between jobs and cutting the cost of maintaining replicated HDFS volumes.

Why this answer

Using Amazon S3 as the data store with EMRFS is correct because it decouples compute and storage — EMR clusters can read/write directly to S3, and the cluster can be terminated without data loss. This reduces costs by allowing transient clusters and eliminating HDFS replication overhead.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests whether candidates understand the difference between decoupling storage and compute versus using a high-performance file system — the trap is choosing FSx for Lustre when the primary goal is cost reduction through S3 decoupling.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because Amazon FSx for Lustre is a high-performance file system for compute-intensive workloads, but it does not decouple storage from compute in the same cost-effective way as S3; it is typically used as a scratch layer. Option C is wrong because Amazon EFS is a shared file system for Linux workloads, not designed for HDFS replacement in EMR, and it does not provide the same scalability or cost model. Option D is wrong because EBS volumes for HDFS keep storage attached to compute nodes, so data is lost when the cluster terminates and costs remain coupled.

211
Drag & Dropmedium

Drag and drop the steps to configure an S3 bucket as a static website hosting in the correct order.

Drag or tap steps into the slots.

Steps
Order
1Step 1
2Step 2
3Step 3
4Step 4

Why this order

The correct sequence ensures that the S3 bucket is properly configured for static website hosting. Start by creating the bucket, then enable static hosting, upload your files, apply a bucket policy for public read access, and finally test the website URL.

212
Multi-Selectmedium

A company is migrating a multi-tier web application to AWS and wants to use Infrastructure as Code (IaC) to automate provisioning. Which AWS services can the company use to define and manage infrastructure declaratively? (Choose TWO.)

Select 2 answers
A.AWS Elastic Beanstalk
B.AWS CloudFormation
C.AWS OpsWorks
D.AWS Cloud Development Kit (CDK)
E.AWS CodeDeploy
AnswersB, D

AWS CloudFormation defines infrastructure declaratively through JSON or YAML templates, letting the company version, review and provision the multi-tier stack repeatably. It satisfies the IaC requirement by managing resource creation and dependencies as code rather than manual console actions.

Why this answer

AWS CloudFormation (B) is correct because it lets you define infrastructure declaratively in JSON or YAML templates, and CloudFormation provisions and manages those resources as stacks. AWS Cloud Development Kit (CDK) (D) is also correct because it allows infrastructure to be defined declaratively using familiar programming languages, which then synthesizes into CloudFormation templates for deployment. AWS Elastic Beanstalk (A) is not the best fit because it is a PaaS that deploys applications from code or configuration but does not itself provide a general declarative IaC language for defining arbitrary infrastructure.

AWS OpsWorks (C) uses Chef/Puppet for configuration management and is more procedural/imperative in practice, not a declarative IaC service in the CloudFormation/CDK sense. AWS CodeDeploy (E) is a deployment orchestration service for applications, not an infrastructure definition or provisioning service.

213
MCQhard

A company is migrating a 10 TB Oracle database to Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL. The migration must have minimal downtime and support ongoing replication. The application uses stored procedures and advanced Oracle features. The company has already set up an AWS DMS replication instance and validated connectivity. However, during the full load, DMS reports errors for certain tables containing LOBs. What is the most likely cause and solution?

A.The DMS replication instance does not have enough memory. Increase the instance size.
B.The target Aurora PostgreSQL cluster does not have enough storage. Increase the allocated storage.
C.The LOB mode is set to 'Limited LOB mode' and some LOBs exceed the maximum allowed size. Set LOB mode to 'Full LOB mode'.
D.The source database is not configured for change data capture (CDC). Enable supplemental logging.
AnswerC

Limited LOB mode truncates or rejects LOBs exceeding the specified MaxLobSize, causing the full-load errors on LOB tables. Switching to Full LOB mode migrates complete LOB values regardless of size, satisfying the requirement for accurate replication of the Oracle data.

Why this answer

AWS DMS offers two LOB handling modes: Limited LOB mode (default) and Full LOB mode. In Limited LOB mode, DMS truncates any LOB larger than the specified MaxLobSize (default 32 KB), which can cause errors or data loss for tables with larger LOBs. Since the migration involves an Oracle database with advanced features and LOBs, it's likely that some LOBs exceed the limit.

Switching to Full LOB mode allows DMS to migrate LOBs of any size, though it may impact performance. This directly addresses the reported errors during full load.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that increasing resources (memory or storage) resolves DMS errors, when the actual issue is LOB handling configuration. Candidates may overlook the default Limited LOB mode and its size limit, leading them to choose resource scaling instead of adjusting LOB mode.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because insufficient memory would typically cause performance degradation or task failures, not specific errors on LOB tables; DMS handles LOBs in chunks and memory is not the primary constraint. Option B is wrong because insufficient storage on the target would result in storage-full errors across all tables, not isolated LOB errors. Option D is wrong because CDC and supplemental logging are required for ongoing replication (change data capture), but the errors occur during the full load phase, not during CDC; enabling supplemental logging would not resolve full load LOB errors.

214
MCQhard

A company is migrating a legacy three-tier application to AWS. The application uses a self-managed Oracle database on an EC2 instance. The company wants to move to Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL with minimal downtime and no data loss. The database is 2 TB and experiences continuous write traffic. A solutions architect must recommend a migration strategy that keeps the source and target databases synchronized until cutover. Which combination of steps should the solutions architect take?

A.Use native Oracle Data Pump to export the database to Amazon S3, then use AWS DMS to import the dump into Aurora PostgreSQL.
B.Use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) with full load only, then stop the application and run a final incremental load before cutover.
C.Use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) with ongoing replication, and use AWS Schema Conversion Tool (AWS SCT) only for assessment, not for schema conversion.
D.Use AWS Schema Conversion Tool (AWS SCT) to convert the schema, then use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) with change data capture (CDC) to replicate ongoing changes until cutover.
AnswerD

AWS SCT converts the Oracle schema and code to Aurora PostgreSQL-compatible objects, and AWS DMS with CDC performs an initial full load followed by continuous replication of ongoing changes. This allows the target to stay synchronized with the source while the application is still writing to Oracle, enabling a cutover with minimal downtime and no data loss. This is the standard approach for heterogeneous database migrations to Aurora.

Why this answer

Heterogeneous migrations from Oracle to Aurora PostgreSQL require both schema conversion and data replication. AWS SCT handles the conversion of schema objects, stored procedures, and other code to PostgreSQL-compatible equivalents. AWS DMS then performs the initial data load and uses change data capture to apply ongoing changes from the Oracle source to the Aurora target.

This combination keeps the target synchronized and allows a cutover with minimal downtime and no data loss, even under continuous write traffic.

Exam trap

The trap here is believing that AWS DMS alone can handle a heterogeneous migration without schema conversion, or that a full load without CDC is sufficient for a database with continuous writes.

215
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a monolithic Java application to AWS. The application uses a shared file system for storing user-uploaded documents. The company wants to refactor the application to use a microservices architecture with decoupled storage and compute. The application currently writes files to a local directory and serves them via a web server. Which AWS service should be used to store the documents to enable stateless compute and independent scaling?

A.Amazon S3
B.Amazon FSx for Windows File Server
C.Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS)
D.Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS)
AnswerA

Amazon S3 is a highly durable, scalable object storage service that decouples storage from compute. By storing documents in S3, the application can be stateless, enabling independent scaling of microservices. S3 also provides features like versioning, lifecycle policies, and event notifications that can trigger downstream processing, making it ideal for modernized applications.

Why this answer

Amazon S3 provides durable, scalable object storage that decouples storage from compute, enabling a stateless microservices architecture. Other options like EFS, EBS, and FSx are file or block storage solutions that require mounting and are not optimized for decoupled, independently scaling services. S3 also integrates with other AWS services for event-driven processing.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that a shared file system like Amazon EFS is the best choice because it mimics the on-premises file share, but it does not provide the decoupling and statelessness required for a microservices architecture.

216
MCQeasy

A company is migrating a monolithic Java application to AWS. The current architecture uses a single Oracle database. The migration plan is to refactor the application into microservices and use separate Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL databases per service. The company also wants to implement a CI/CD pipeline using AWS CodePipeline and AWS CodeBuild. Which tool should the company use to automate the database schema changes for each microservice?

A.Flyway, integrated into the CI/CD pipeline to run database migrations as part of the application deployment.
B.AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) to continuously replicate schema changes from the source Oracle database.
C.AWS CloudFormation with custom resource Lambda functions to run SQL scripts.
D.AWS CLI scripts executed in CodeBuild to run SQL commands against the target databases.
AnswerA

Flyway runs versioned SQL migrations against each service's RDS for PostgreSQL instance, tracking applied changes in its own schema history table. Embedded as a CodeBuild build step, it applies pending migrations before deployment, satisfying the requirement to automate schema changes per microservice within the existing CI/CD pipeline.

Why this answer

Flyway is a database migration tool that integrates directly into CI/CD pipelines, allowing schema changes to be version-controlled and applied automatically during application deployment. For a microservices architecture with separate PostgreSQL databases, Flyway can manage each service's schema independently, ensuring consistency and rollback capability. This aligns with the requirement to automate schema changes per microservice as part of the migration and modernization effort.

Exam trap

The trap here is that candidates may confuse data migration tools (like AWS DMS) with schema migration tools, or assume that any scripting approach (like AWS CLI) is sufficient, overlooking the need for version control, repeatability, and integration with application deployment pipelines that Flyway provides.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option B is wrong because AWS DMS is designed for continuous data replication and one-time migrations, not for managing version-controlled schema changes in a CI/CD pipeline; it does not integrate with application deployment workflows. Option C is wrong because AWS CloudFormation with custom Lambda functions is overly complex and not purpose-built for database schema migrations; it lacks built-in versioning, rollback, and migration sequencing that tools like Flyway provide. Option D is wrong because AWS CLI scripts executed in CodeBuild to run SQL commands are fragile, error-prone, and lack version control, dependency management, and repeatability; they do not handle migration history or rollbacks reliably.

217
MCQeasy

A company is migrating its on-premises data warehouse to AWS. The data warehouse contains 50 TB of data and is used for complex analytical queries. The company wants a fully managed, petabyte-scale solution that can handle the queries efficiently. Which AWS service should be used?

A.Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL
B.Amazon S3 with Amazon Athena
C.Amazon Redshift
D.Amazon DynamoDB
AnswerC

Amazon Redshift is a fully managed, petabyte-scale data warehouse service designed for complex analytical queries. It uses columnar storage and massively parallel processing to deliver high performance. It is the ideal choice for migrating an on-premises data warehouse to AWS.

Why this answer

Amazon Redshift is a fully managed, petabyte-scale data warehouse service that uses columnar storage and massively parallel processing to handle complex analytical queries efficiently. It is designed for exactly this use case, making it the correct choice for migrating an on-premises data warehouse.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that Amazon S3 with Athena is a direct replacement for a data warehouse, overlooking the performance and management features of Redshift.

218
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a legacy on-premises application to AWS. The application runs on a physical server with a large local PostgreSQL database. The company wants to minimize downtime during the migration and ensure the on-premises and AWS environments remain synchronized until cutover. The application can tolerate a brief period of read-only mode during the final cutover. Which migration strategy should a solutions architect recommend?

A.Use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) with ongoing replication to migrate the database to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL, and use AWS Application Migration Service (AWS MGN) to replicate the application server.
B.Use AWS Snowball Edge to transfer a database backup to Amazon S3, then restore it to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL, and use AWS DataSync to replicate the application server.
C.Use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) with ongoing replication to migrate the database to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL, and use AWS DataSync to replicate the application server.
D.Use native PostgreSQL logical replication to an Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL instance, and use AWS Server Migration Service (SMS) to replicate the application server.
AnswerA

AWS DMS supports continuous replication from an on-premises PostgreSQL database to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL, keeping the target in sync until cutover. AWS MGN replicates the application server block-level, enabling a staged cutover. This combination minimizes downtime and maintains synchronization, aligning with the requirement for a brief read-only period.

Why this answer

AWS DMS provides continuous data replication from on-premises PostgreSQL to Amazon RDS, keeping the target synchronized until cutover. AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) replicates the application server at the block level, allowing a staged cutover with minimal downtime. This combination meets the requirements for synchronization and a brief read-only period during cutover.

Exam trap

The trap here is assuming that AWS DataSync can replicate an entire application server, when it is actually designed for file-based data transfer and cannot capture the server's operating system or installed applications.

219
MCQeasy

A company is migrating an on-premises Oracle database to AWS. The database is 2 TB in size and has a low-latency connection to AWS via AWS Direct Connect. The company wants to minimize downtime during the migration. Which AWS service should the architect use for the initial data load?

A.AWS DataSync
B.AWS Snowball Edge
C.AWS Server Migration Service (AWS SMS)
D.AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS)
AnswerD

AWS DMS performs the initial full load and ongoing change data capture replication, keeping the source Oracle database available while data transfers over the existing Direct Connect link. This satisfies the requirement to minimise downtime, unlike offline export or backup-based approaches.

Why this answer

AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) is purpose-built for migrating databases to AWS with minimal downtime, supporting homogeneous and heterogeneous migrations, and it performs the initial full load plus ongoing change data capture (CDC) to keep the target in sync until cutover. For a 2 TB Oracle database over Direct Connect, DMS is the correct choice for the initial data load.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the confusion between DataSync (file transfer), Snowball (offline bulk), and DMS (database migration), causing candidates to pick DataSync for a database workload.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because DataSync is for file and object data transfer (NFS, SMB, S3, EFS), not database migration. Option B is wrong because Snowball Edge is for offline bulk data transfer when network bandwidth is insufficient — here Direct Connect provides low-latency connectivity, so Snowball is unnecessary. Option C is wrong because AWS SMS (now Application Migration Service) migrates servers/VMs, not databases.

220
MCQmedium

A company is migrating a web application to AWS and wants to automatically scale the application based on CPU utilization. The application runs on a set of EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. Which combination of AWS services should they use?

A.AWS Lambda with scheduled scaling
B.Amazon CloudFront with origin scaling
C.AWS Elastic Beanstalk with environment scaling
D.Auto Scaling group with a simple scaling policy based on CloudWatch CPU alarm
AnswerD

An Auto Scaling group with a simple scaling policy triggered by a CloudWatch CPU utilisation alarm adjusts desired capacity automatically, satisfying the CPU-based scaling requirement. The Application Load Balancer distributes traffic across the scaled instances, keeping the architecture responsive under varying load.

Why this answer

Auto Scaling group with a simple scaling policy based on a CloudWatch CPU alarm. This directly scales EC2 instances in response to CPU utilization, providing automatic scaling. Option A is incorrect because AWS Lambda with scheduled scaling does not dynamically respond to CPU utilization; it's time-based.

Option B (Amazon CloudFront) is a content delivery network, not a scaling mechanism. Option C (Elastic Beanstalk) manages environments but the underlying scaling relies on Auto Scaling groups; the question asks for the combination of services, and the core scaling service is the Auto Scaling group. Therefore, D is the correct choice.

221
MCQeasy

A company is migrating its on-premises file server to AWS. The file server contains 50 TB of data stored on a Windows Server with NTFS permissions. The company needs to maintain the folder structure and permissions after migration. The migration must be completed within one week. The company has a 100 Mbps internet connection. Which approach should the solutions architect recommend?

A.Use AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway to cache data on-premises and sync to S3.
B.Use AWS Snowball Edge to transfer data to an S3 bucket, then use AWS DataSync to copy to Amazon FSx for Windows File Server.
C.Use AWS DataSync to transfer data directly to Amazon EFS over the internet.
D.Use AWS CLI to copy data directly to an S3 bucket, then mount S3 as a file system.
AnswerB

Snowball Edge bypasses the 100 Mbps link, which would take over 46 days for 50 TB, meeting the one-week deadline. DataSync then preserves NTFS discretionary access control lists and the folder hierarchy when copying into Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, satisfying the permission-retention requirement.

Why this answer

AWS Snowball Edge is used to physically transfer large datasets (50 TB) quickly, bypassing the slow 100 Mbps internet connection (which would take ~46 days). After transfer to S3, AWS DataSync can copy the data to Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, preserving NTFS permissions and folder structure. This meets the one-week deadline and maintains permissions.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the misconception that AWS DataSync can efficiently transfer large datasets over slow connections, or that S3 can directly serve as a Windows file share with NTFS permissions.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because AWS Storage Gateway File Gateway caches data on-premises and syncs to S3, but it does not preserve NTFS permissions when migrating to a Windows file server, and the initial sync over 100 Mbps would be too slow. Option C is wrong because AWS DataSync over the internet at 100 Mbps would take too long, and Amazon EFS does not support NTFS permissions (it uses POSIX). Option D is wrong because using AWS CLI to copy to S3 does not preserve NTFS permissions, and mounting S3 as a file system is not natively supported for Windows and does not provide NTFS permission preservation.

222
MCQmedium

A company is planning to migrate a large-scale Hadoop cluster to Amazon EMR. The cluster currently processes batch jobs using a mix of MapReduce and Spark. The company wants to minimize changes to the existing code and operational processes. Which migration approach should the architect recommend?

A.Refactor all jobs to use only Apache Spark on Amazon EMR
B.Retire the cluster and use Amazon Athena for ad-hoc queries
C.Replatform the data processing to use Amazon Redshift Spectrum
D.Rehost the cluster on Amazon EMR using the same MapReduce and Spark configurations
AnswerD

Rehosting on Amazon EMR preserves the existing MapReduce and Spark APIs, so job code and operational tooling transfer with minimal modification. This directly satisfies the stem's constraint of minimising code and process changes, unlike replatforming to serverless or rewriting jobs for a different engine.

Why this answer

Rehosting the Hadoop cluster on Amazon EMR with the same MapReduce and Spark configurations minimizes code changes and operational disruption, which is exactly what the company wants. EMR supports both MapReduce and Spark natively, so existing jobs can run with minimal modification. This is the classic lift-and-shift approach for Hadoop-to-EMR migrations.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests migration strategy selection — the trap is choosing 'refactor' or 'replatform' when the scenario explicitly says 'minimize changes to existing code,' which points to rehost.

How to eliminate wrong answers

Option A is wrong because refactoring all jobs to Spark requires rewriting MapReduce code, which contradicts the requirement to minimize changes. Option B is wrong because retiring the cluster and using Athena for ad-hoc queries does not support batch MapReduce/Spark jobs and would require re-architecting the entire processing pipeline. Option C is wrong because Redshift Spectrum is a query service for data in S3, not a replacement for MapReduce/Spark batch processing, and would require significant rework.

223
MCQeasy

A company is migrating an on-premises Oracle database to Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL. They need to minimize downtime and ensure data integrity. Which AWS service should they use for the migration?

A.AWS Schema Conversion Tool (SCT)
B.AWS Database Migration Service (DMS)
C.AWS DataSync
D.AWS Snowball Edge
AnswerB

DMS performs continuous change data capture from the source Oracle database, replicating ongoing transactions to Aurora PostgreSQL until cutover. This satisfies the minimal-downtime and data-integrity constraints, unlike a one-off snapshot export, because replication keeps the target synchronised right up to the switch.

Why this answer

AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) supports homogeneous and heterogeneous migrations with minimal downtime. Option A is wrong because SCT only helps with schema conversion, not the actual data migration. Option C is wrong because DataSync is for file storage, not databases.

Option D is wrong because Snowball Edge is for large-scale offline data transfer, not online database migration.

224
Multi-Selecthard

A company is modernizing a monolithic application into microservices on AWS. The application currently uses a single SQL database. Which THREE AWS services can help decouple the data layer and enable event-driven communication between microservices?

Select 3 answers
A.Amazon Simple Notification Service (SNS)
B.Amazon RDS
C.Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)
D.Amazon ElastiCache
E.Amazon EventBridge
AnswersA, C, E

Amazon SNS provides pub/sub messaging, letting microservices publish events to topics and fan out to multiple subscribers without direct coupling. This satisfies the stem's requirement for event-driven communication between microservices, decoupling producers from consumers. It complements database decoupling by removing synchronous point-to-point calls, enabling asynchronous, scalable event distribution across services.

Why this answer

Amazon SNS (A) is correct because it provides a pub/sub messaging service that lets microservices publish events to multiple subscribers (SQS queues, Lambda, HTTP endpoints), enabling fan-out event-driven communication without tight coupling. Amazon SQS (C) is correct because it offers durable, decoupled point-to-point queues that buffer messages between producers and consumers, allowing microservices to communicate asynchronously and independently scale. Amazon EventBridge (E) is correct because it is a serverless event bus that routes events from AWS services, custom applications, and SaaS sources to targets using rules and filters, which is ideal for event-driven microservice architectures.

Amazon RDS (B) is not correct because it is a relational database service, not a decoupling or event-driven messaging mechanism, and the scenario is moving away from a single SQL database. Amazon ElastiCache (D) is not correct because it is an in-memory caching service (Redis/Memcached) for performance, not a service for decoupling data layers or enabling event-driven communication.

Exam trap

SAP-C02 often tests the confusion between services that store data (RDS, ElastiCache) and those that enable event-driven decoupling (SNS, SQS, EventBridge); candidates may incorrectly select RDS or ElastiCache thinking they help decouple.

225
Multi-Selecthard

A company is migrating a legacy application to AWS and needs to decouple the application components. The application currently uses a monolithic architecture with direct calls between components. Which AWS services can help decouple the components? (Choose THREE.)

Select 3 answers
A.Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)
B.Amazon Simple Notification Service (SNS)
C.AWS Step Functions
D.Amazon Kinesis Data Streams
E.Amazon EventBridge
AnswersA, B, E

Amazon SQS decouples components by providing a durable, fully managed message queue that buffers asynchronous communication, so producers and consumers no longer call each other directly. This directly satisfies the stem's requirement to break the monolithic application's direct component-to-component calls, absorbing traffic spikes and tolerating consumer failures without losing messages.

Why this answer

Amazon SQS (A) is correct because it provides a fully managed message queue that lets producers and consumers communicate asynchronously, removing direct component-to-component calls and buffering messages for reliable decoupling. Amazon SNS (B) is correct because it implements the publish/subscribe pattern, allowing a publisher to fan out notifications to multiple subscribers without knowing or directly invoking them, which breaks tight coupling. Amazon EventBridge (E) is correct because it is a serverless event bus that routes events from producers to consumers based on rules, enabling event-driven decoupling between otherwise independent components.

AWS Step Functions (C) is a workflow orchestration service that coordinates components but still invokes them in a defined sequence, so it does not by itself decouple them. Amazon Kinesis Data Streams (D) is a real-time streaming service for ingesting and processing high-volume data, not a general-purpose application decoupling mechanism in this scenario.

← PreviousPage 3 of 4 · 235 questions totalNext →

Ready to test yourself?

Try a timed practice session using only Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization questions.