Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Data Governance, Backup, Replication, Retention, Lifecycle, and Access Controls Practice Test 2

 

Topic 06 Practice Test 2 covers Data Governance, Backup, Replication, Retention, Lifecycle, and Access Controls for AWS SAA-C03. For broader exam preparation, review the AWS SAA-C03 Exam Dumps. Every option includes focused technical reasoning explaining both the AWS architecture concept and its fit to the scenario.

Question 1

Which option best supports this requirement: prevent a root-level deletion attempt from shortening a required retention window? Constraint: an audit archive must survive administrator compromise until its fixed date. Choose ONE.

1. AWS Backup Vault Lock compliance mode
2. S3 Object Lock legal hold
3. S3 Object Lock compliance mode
4. S3 Object Lock governance mode

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. AWS Backup Vault Lock compliance mode addresses the need to enforce WORM retention across AWS Backup recovery points. The case hinges on an audit archive must survive administrator compromise until its fixed date. The team must prevent a root-level deletion attempt from shortening a required retention window. That capability is not the required control.
2. S3 Object Lock legal hold primarily places indefinite protection on an individual object version until the hold is explicitly removed. Requirement: prevent a root-level deletion attempt from shortening a required retention window; key constraint: an audit archive must survive administrator compromise until its fixed date. That mismatch makes it a weaker choice.
3. S3 Object Lock compliance mode prevents protected object versions from being overwritten or deleted, including by privileged users, until retention expires. Limiting condition: an audit archive must survive administrator compromise until its fixed date; solution must prevent a root-level deletion attempt from shortening a required retention window. That is the direct functional match.
4. S3 Object Lock governance mode supports teams that need to apply WORM-style protection with an authorized emergency override. Case: an audit archive must survive administrator compromise until its fixed date; required action: prevent a root-level deletion attempt from shortening a required retention window. This solves a neighboring problem instead.

 

Question 2

Most operators must be unable to delete locked versions while a compliance team can override. What should the team do to separate routine delete permissions from exceptional retention-bypass authority? Choose ONE.

1. S3 Object Lock governance mode
2. S3 Object Lock legal hold
3. S3 Object Lock compliance mode
4. AWS Backup Vault Lock compliance mode

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. S3 Object Lock governance mode can help a team apply WORM-style protection with an authorized emergency override. Given most operators must be unable to delete locked versions while a compliance team can override, the relevant choice must separate routine delete permissions from exceptional retention-bypass authority. The documented behavior matches the requested result.
2. S3 Object Lock legal hold is intended to hold selected S3 versions without choosing an expiration date. Here, most operators must be unable to delete locked versions while a compliance team can override; design must separate routine delete permissions from exceptional retention-bypass authority. That capability is not the required control.
3. S3 Object Lock compliance mode supports teams that need to enforce non-bypassable WORM retention on S3 versions. Limiting condition: most operators must be unable to delete locked versions while a compliance team can override; solution must separate routine delete permissions from exceptional retention-bypass authority. This solves a neighboring problem instead.
4. AWS Backup Vault Lock compliance mode is designed to enforce WORM retention across AWS Backup recovery points. Case: most operators must be unable to delete locked versions while a compliance team can override; required action: separate routine delete permissions from exceptional retention-bypass authority. That leaves the key constraint unresolved.

 

Question 3

The team needs to keep one evidence version immutable independently of the bucket default retention clock, but a litigation case can outlast the normal retention period. Which option is best? Choose ONE.

1. S3 Object Lock legal hold
2. S3 Object Lock governance mode
3. AWS Backup Vault Lock compliance mode
4. S3 Object Lock compliance mode

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. S3 Object Lock legal hold fits situations that require teams to hold selected S3 versions without choosing an expiration date. Requirement: keep one evidence version immutable independently of the bucket default retention clock; key constraint: a litigation case can outlast the normal retention period. That makes this the strongest fit.
2. S3 Object Lock governance mode protects versions while permitting specially authorized users to bypass governance retention. Here, a litigation case can outlast the normal retention period; design must keep one evidence version immutable independently of the bucket default retention clock. Its primary role differs from this need.
3. AWS Backup Vault Lock compliance mode addresses the need to enforce WORM retention across AWS Backup recovery points. Because a litigation case can outlast the normal retention period, the team must keep one evidence version immutable independently of the bucket default retention clock. The scenario calls for another native capability.
4. S3 Object Lock compliance mode is intended to enforce non-bypassable WORM retention on S3 versions. The case hinges on a litigation case can outlast the normal retention period. The team must keep one evidence version immutable independently of the bucket default retention clock. That capability is not the required control.

 

Question 4

Given that the organization needs a grace period for validation and then irreversible retention controls, which approach most directly lets the team make backup retention settings unchangeable after an approval window closes? Choose ONE.

1. S3 Object Lock legal hold
2. S3 Object Lock compliance mode
3. S3 Object Lock governance mode
4. AWS Backup Vault Lock compliance mode

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. S3 Object Lock legal hold supports teams that need to hold selected S3 versions without choosing an expiration date. Here, the organization needs a grace period for validation and then irreversible retention controls; design must make backup retention settings unchangeable after an approval window closes. That capability is not the required control.
2. S3 Object Lock compliance mode primarily prevents protected object versions from being overwritten or deleted, including by privileged users, until retention expires. Case: the organization needs a grace period for validation and then irreversible retention controls; required action: make backup retention settings unchangeable after an approval window closes. That leaves the key constraint unresolved.
3. S3 Object Lock governance mode addresses the need to apply WORM-style protection with an authorized emergency override. Given the organization needs a grace period for validation and then irreversible retention controls, the relevant choice must make backup retention settings unchangeable after an approval window closes. The scenario calls for another native capability.
4. AWS Backup Vault Lock compliance mode can help a team enforce WORM retention across AWS Backup recovery points. Decisive fact: the organization needs a grace period for validation and then irreversible retention controls; requested action: make backup retention settings unchangeable after an approval window closes. This is the precise capability required.

 

Question 5

Which option best supports this requirement: expire noncurrent object versions only after a defined retention interval? Constraint: versioning is enabled and stale versions should age out automatically. Choose ONE.

1. S3 Intelligent-Tiering
2. S3 Lifecycle rules
3. S3 Replication Time Control
4. S3 Cross-Region Replication

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. S3 Intelligent-Tiering can help a team optimize storage when object access frequency is unpredictable. Requirement: expire noncurrent object versions only after a defined retention interval; key constraint: versioning is enabled and stale versions should age out automatically. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
2. S3 Lifecycle rules is designed to apply deterministic age-based storage-class and expiration actions. Here, versioning is enabled and stale versions should age out automatically; design must expire noncurrent object versions only after a defined retention interval. Its native behavior fits this need.
3. S3 Replication Time Control fits situations that require teams to meet a predictable replication-time requirement for replicated S3 objects. Limiting condition: versioning is enabled and stale versions should age out automatically; solution must expire noncurrent object versions only after a defined retention interval. That leaves the key constraint unresolved.
4. S3 Cross-Region Replication is intended to maintain an S3 replica in a different Region. Because versioning is enabled and stale versions should age out automatically, the team must expire noncurrent object versions only after a defined retention interval. The scenario calls for another native capability.

 

Question 6

Access frequency varies over time and operational overhead should be minimized. What should the team do to avoid manually redesigning lifecycle thresholds as objects alternate between hot and cold use? Choose ONE.

1. S3 Lifecycle rules
2. S3 Replication Time Control
3. S3 Intelligent-Tiering
4. S3 Cross-Region Replication

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. S3 Lifecycle rules addresses the need to apply deterministic age-based storage-class and expiration actions. Decisive fact: access frequency varies over time and operational overhead should be minimized; requested action: avoid manually redesigning lifecycle thresholds as objects alternate between hot and cold use. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
2. S3 Replication Time Control primarily provides an S3 replication SLA and metrics for replication within a predictable time window. The case hinges on access frequency varies over time and operational overhead should be minimized. The team must avoid manually redesigning lifecycle thresholds as objects alternate between hot and cold use. Its primary role differs from this need.
3. S3 Intelligent-Tiering fits situations that require teams to optimize storage when object access frequency is unpredictable. Case: access frequency varies over time and operational overhead should be minimized; required action: avoid manually redesigning lifecycle thresholds as objects alternate between hot and cold use. That is the direct functional match.
4. S3 Cross-Region Replication asynchronously replicates eligible S3 objects and metadata to a bucket in another AWS Region. Because access frequency varies over time and operational overhead should be minimized, the team must avoid manually redesigning lifecycle thresholds as objects alternate between hot and cold use. This would address the wrong decision point.

 

Question 7

The team needs to maintain a secondary regional S3 copy under separate KMS and ownership controls, but new source objects need asynchronous replication to a disaster-recovery Region. Which option is best? Choose ONE.

1. S3 Intelligent-Tiering
2. S3 Replication Time Control
3. S3 Lifecycle rules
4. S3 Cross-Region Replication

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. S3 Intelligent-Tiering is designed to optimize storage when object access frequency is unpredictable. Given new source objects need asynchronous replication to a disaster-recovery Region, the relevant choice must maintain a secondary regional S3 copy under separate KMS and ownership controls. This would address the wrong decision point.
2. S3 Replication Time Control can help a team meet a predictable replication-time requirement for replicated S3 objects. Limiting condition: new source objects need asynchronous replication to a disaster-recovery Region; solution must maintain a secondary regional S3 copy under separate KMS and ownership controls. This solves a neighboring problem instead.
3. S3 Lifecycle rules primarily automatically transition or expire objects and versions according to age and policy. Here, new source objects need asynchronous replication to a disaster-recovery Region; design must maintain a secondary regional S3 copy under separate KMS and ownership controls. Its primary role differs from this need.
4. S3 Cross-Region Replication supports teams that need to maintain an S3 replica in a different Region. Because new source objects need asynchronous replication to a disaster-recovery Region, the team must maintain a secondary regional S3 copy under separate KMS and ownership controls. The documented behavior matches the requested result.

 

Question 8

Given that the recovery design requires a measurable replication-time objective, which approach most directly lets the team monitor and bound replication delay for a regulated cross-Region copy workflow? Choose ONE.

1. S3 Intelligent-Tiering
2. S3 Cross-Region Replication
3. S3 Lifecycle rules
4. S3 Replication Time Control

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. S3 Intelligent-Tiering is designed to optimize storage when object access frequency is unpredictable. Because the recovery design requires a measurable replication-time objective, the team must monitor and bound replication delay for a regulated cross-Region copy workflow. This would address the wrong decision point.
2. S3 Cross-Region Replication asynchronously replicates eligible S3 objects and metadata to a bucket in another AWS Region. Requirement: monitor and bound replication delay for a regulated cross-Region copy workflow; key constraint: the recovery design requires a measurable replication-time objective. That mismatch makes it a weaker choice.
3. S3 Lifecycle rules is intended to apply deterministic age-based storage-class and expiration actions. Decisive fact: the recovery design requires a measurable replication-time objective; requested action: monitor and bound replication delay for a regulated cross-Region copy workflow. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
4. S3 Replication Time Control fits situations that require teams to meet a predictable replication-time requirement for replicated S3 objects. The case hinges on the recovery design requires a measurable replication-time objective. The team must monitor and bound replication delay for a regulated cross-Region copy workflow. Its native behavior fits this need.

 

Question 9

Which option best supports this requirement: separate backup frequency from application-specific scripts across multiple supported services? Constraint: the organization wants policy-based recovery points instead of per-service cron jobs. Choose ONE.

1. AWS Backup backup plans
2. AWS Backup cross-account copy
3. Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager
4. AWS Backup restore testing

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. AWS Backup backup plans define schedules, retention lifecycle, vault targets, and resource assignments for centralized backup. Decisive fact: the organization wants policy-based recovery points instead of per-service cron jobs; requested action: separate backup frequency from application-specific scripts across multiple supported services. That makes this the strongest fit.
2. AWS Backup cross-account copy primarily copies supported recovery points to a vault in another AWS account for isolation. Given the organization wants policy-based recovery points instead of per-service cron jobs, the relevant choice must separate backup frequency from application-specific scripts across multiple supported services. This would address the wrong decision point.
3. Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager addresses the need to manage recurring EBS snapshot or AMI lifecycle policies. Limiting condition: the organization wants policy-based recovery points instead of per-service cron jobs; solution must separate backup frequency from application-specific scripts across multiple supported services. This solves a neighboring problem instead.
4. AWS Backup restore testing supports teams that need to verify that protected recovery points can actually be restored. Requirement: separate backup frequency from application-specific scripts across multiple supported services; key constraint: the organization wants policy-based recovery points instead of per-service cron jobs. This does not deliver the requested outcome.

 

Question 10

Security policy requires a recovery copy outside the source account boundary. What should the team do to implement organizational backup separation using a destination vault owned elsewhere? Choose ONE.

1. AWS Backup cross-account copy
2. AWS Backup backup plans
3. AWS Backup restore testing
4. Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. AWS Backup cross-account copy is intended to place backup copies in a separate account. Case: security policy requires a recovery copy outside the source account boundary; required action: implement organizational backup separation using a destination vault owned elsewhere. This aligns cleanly with the requirement.
2. AWS Backup backup plans supports teams that need to standardize policy-driven backups across supported AWS resources. Decisive fact: security policy requires a recovery copy outside the source account boundary; requested action: implement organizational backup separation using a destination vault owned elsewhere. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
3. AWS Backup restore testing can help a team verify that protected recovery points can actually be restored. The case hinges on security policy requires a recovery copy outside the source account boundary. The team must implement organizational backup separation using a destination vault owned elsewhere. That capability is not the required control.
4. Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager is designed to manage recurring EBS snapshot or AMI lifecycle policies. Requirement: implement organizational backup separation using a destination vault owned elsewhere; key constraint: security policy requires a recovery copy outside the source account boundary. That mismatch makes it a weaker choice.

 

Question 11

The team needs to detect unusable recovery procedures before an incident by exercising restoration automatically, but the organization needs repeatable recovery validation rather than only successful backup jobs. Which option is best? Choose ONE.

1. AWS Backup cross-account copy
2. AWS Backup backup plans
3. Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager
4. AWS Backup restore testing

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. AWS Backup cross-account copy addresses the need to place backup copies in a separate account. Here, the organization needs repeatable recovery validation rather than only successful backup jobs; design must detect unusable recovery procedures before an incident by exercising restoration automatically. That capability is not the required control.
2. AWS Backup backup plans fits situations that require teams to standardize policy-driven backups across supported AWS resources. Given the organization needs repeatable recovery validation rather than only successful backup jobs, the relevant choice must detect unusable recovery procedures before an incident by exercising restoration automatically. This would address the wrong decision point.
3. Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager is intended to manage recurring EBS snapshot or AMI lifecycle policies. Limiting condition: the organization needs repeatable recovery validation rather than only successful backup jobs; solution must detect unusable recovery procedures before an incident by exercising restoration automatically. This solves a neighboring problem instead.
4. AWS Backup restore testing automates scheduled restore tests and records recovery validation results for supported resources. Case: the organization needs repeatable recovery validation rather than only successful backup jobs; required action: detect unusable recovery procedures before an incident by exercising restoration automatically. That is the direct functional match.

 

Question 12

Given that the operations team needs image lifecycle automation tied to EC2 resources, which approach most directly lets the team automate EBS-backed AMI creation for tagged instances without a cross-service backup policy? Choose ONE.

1. AWS Backup restore testing
2. Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager
3. AWS Backup backup plans
4. AWS Backup cross-account copy

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. AWS Backup restore testing addresses the need to verify that protected recovery points can actually be restored. The case hinges on the operations team needs image lifecycle automation tied to EC2 resources. The team must automate EBS-backed AMI creation for tagged instances without a cross-service backup policy. That capability is not the required control.
2. Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager can help a team manage recurring EBS snapshot or AMI lifecycle policies. Because the operations team needs image lifecycle automation tied to EC2 resources, the team must automate EBS-backed AMI creation for tagged instances without a cross-service backup policy. The documented behavior matches the requested result.
3. AWS Backup backup plans supports teams that need to standardize policy-driven backups across supported AWS resources. Case: the operations team needs image lifecycle automation tied to EC2 resources; required action: automate EBS-backed AMI creation for tagged instances without a cross-service backup policy. This solves a neighboring problem instead.
4. AWS Backup cross-account copy primarily copies supported recovery points to a vault in another AWS account for isolation. Requirement: automate EBS-backed AMI creation for tagged instances without a cross-service backup policy; key constraint: the operations team needs image lifecycle automation tied to EC2 resources. That mismatch makes it a weaker choice.

 

Question 13

Which option best supports this requirement: produce findings when new S3 data contains regulated identifiers? Constraint: the security team needs classification evidence rather than a storage lifecycle action. Choose ONE.

1. Amazon Macie
2. S3 Block Public Access
3. S3 Access Points
4. S3 Inventory

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. Amazon Macie is intended to identify sensitive S3 data for governance decisions. Here, the security team needs classification evidence rather than a storage lifecycle action; design must produce findings when new S3 data contains regulated identifiers. That capability directly satisfies the constraint.
2. S3 Block Public Access is designed to prevent accidental public exposure of S3 data. Case: the security team needs classification evidence rather than a storage lifecycle action; required action: produce findings when new S3 data contains regulated identifiers. That leaves the key constraint unresolved.
3. S3 Access Points can help a team separate application-specific access policies to a shared bucket. Given the security team needs classification evidence rather than a storage lifecycle action, the relevant choice must produce findings when new S3 data contains regulated identifiers. The scenario calls for another native capability.
4. S3 Inventory fits situations that require teams to audit S3 object metadata at scale. Decisive fact: the security team needs classification evidence rather than a storage lifecycle action; requested action: produce findings when new S3 data contains regulated identifiers. That mismatch makes it a weaker choice.

 

Question 14

The account needs a broad preventative data-access control. What should the team do to stop newly created buckets from becoming public through ACLs or public bucket policies? Choose ONE.

1. S3 Inventory
2. Amazon Macie
3. S3 Block Public Access
4. S3 Access Points

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. S3 Inventory fits situations that require teams to audit S3 object metadata at scale. Requirement: stop newly created buckets from becoming public through ACLs or public bucket policies; key constraint: the account needs a broad preventative data-access control. That mismatch makes it a weaker choice.
2. Amazon Macie discovers and classifies sensitive data in Amazon S3 using managed data identifiers and findings. Here, the account needs a broad preventative data-access control; design must stop newly created buckets from becoming public through ACLs or public bucket policies. Its primary role differs from this need.
3. S3 Block Public Access primarily provides account- or bucket-level controls that override public ACL and policy exposure paths. Limiting condition: the account needs a broad preventative data-access control; solution must stop newly created buckets from becoming public through ACLs or public bucket policies. That is the direct functional match.
4. S3 Access Points addresses the need to separate application-specific access policies to a shared bucket. Because the account needs a broad preventative data-access control, the team must stop newly created buckets from becoming public through ACLs or public bucket policies. The scenario calls for another native capability.

 

Question 15

The team needs to require a workload to reach a shared bucket only through a VPC-restricted endpoint policy, but one application needs a dedicated network-scoped access path. Which option is best? Choose ONE.

1. S3 Inventory
2. S3 Block Public Access
3. Amazon Macie
4. S3 Access Points

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. S3 Inventory can help a team audit S3 object metadata at scale. Decisive fact: one application needs a dedicated network-scoped access path; requested action: require a workload to reach a shared bucket only through a VPC-restricted endpoint policy. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
2. S3 Block Public Access primarily provides account- or bucket-level controls that override public ACL and policy exposure paths. Case: one application needs a dedicated network-scoped access path; required action: require a workload to reach a shared bucket only through a VPC-restricted endpoint policy. That leaves the key constraint unresolved.
3. Amazon Macie supports teams that need to identify sensitive S3 data for governance decisions. Here, one application needs a dedicated network-scoped access path; design must require a workload to reach a shared bucket only through a VPC-restricted endpoint policy. That capability is not the required control.
4. S3 Access Points is designed to separate application-specific access policies to a shared bucket. The case hinges on one application needs a dedicated network-scoped access path. The team must require a workload to reach a shared bucket only through a VPC-restricted endpoint policy. Its native behavior fits this need.

 

Question 16

Given that the compliance team needs scheduled inventory evidence across a large bucket, which approach most directly lets the team export Object Lock and storage metadata for offline governance checks? Choose ONE.

1. Amazon Macie
2. S3 Inventory
3. S3 Block Public Access
4. S3 Access Points

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. Amazon Macie discovers and classifies sensitive data in Amazon S3 using managed data identifiers and findings. Given the compliance team needs scheduled inventory evidence across a large bucket, the relevant choice must export Object Lock and storage metadata for offline governance checks. This would address the wrong decision point.
2. S3 Inventory is designed to audit S3 object metadata at scale. Here, the compliance team needs scheduled inventory evidence across a large bucket; design must export Object Lock and storage metadata for offline governance checks. Its native behavior fits this need.
3. S3 Block Public Access fits situations that require teams to prevent accidental public exposure of S3 data. Limiting condition: the compliance team needs scheduled inventory evidence across a large bucket; solution must export Object Lock and storage metadata for offline governance checks. That leaves the key constraint unresolved.
4. S3 Access Points is intended to separate application-specific access policies to a shared bucket. Because the compliance team needs scheduled inventory evidence across a large bucket, the team must export Object Lock and storage metadata for offline governance checks. The scenario calls for another native capability.

 

Question 17

Which option best supports this requirement: maintain continuous recoverability for table data without scheduling backup jobs? Constraint: operators need a selectable historical restore point after application errors. Choose ONE.

1. EFS replication
2. RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery
3. DynamoDB point-in-time recovery
4. EC2 Recycle Bin

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. EFS replication addresses the need to maintain an asynchronously replicated EFS copy. Decisive fact: operators need a selectable historical restore point after application errors; requested action: maintain continuous recoverability for table data without scheduling backup jobs. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
2. RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery retain transaction logs and backups that support restoring a DB instance to a selected time within the backup window. Because operators need a selectable historical restore point after application errors, the team must maintain continuous recoverability for table data without scheduling backup jobs. This would address the wrong decision point.
3. DynamoDB point-in-time recovery primarily continuously backs up a DynamoDB table so it can be restored to a selected second within the retention window. The case hinges on operators need a selectable historical restore point after application errors. The team must maintain continuous recoverability for table data without scheduling backup jobs. Its native behavior fits this need.
4. EC2 Recycle Bin supports teams that need to recover accidentally deleted snapshots or AMIs. Given operators need a selectable historical restore point after application errors, the relevant choice must maintain continuous recoverability for table data without scheduling backup jobs. The scenario calls for another native capability.

 

Question 18

The database needs routine point-in-time restore capability. What should the team do to maintain continuous transaction-log-based recoverability without manual snapshot scheduling? Choose ONE.

1. DynamoDB point-in-time recovery
2. RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery
3. EC2 Recycle Bin
4. EFS replication

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. DynamoDB point-in-time recovery supports teams that need to recover a DynamoDB table to an earlier point after accidental writes. Because the database needs routine point-in-time restore capability, the team must maintain continuous transaction-log-based recoverability without manual snapshot scheduling. The scenario calls for another native capability.
2. RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery is designed to recover an RDS database to a precise earlier time. Given the database needs routine point-in-time restore capability, the relevant choice must maintain continuous transaction-log-based recoverability without manual snapshot scheduling. This addresses the decision at the right layer.
3. EC2 Recycle Bin is intended to recover accidentally deleted snapshots or AMIs. Requirement: maintain continuous transaction-log-based recoverability without manual snapshot scheduling; key constraint: the database needs routine point-in-time restore capability. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
4. EFS replication can help a team maintain an asynchronously replicated EFS copy. Limiting condition: the database needs routine point-in-time restore capability; solution must maintain continuous transaction-log-based recoverability without manual snapshot scheduling. This solves a neighboring problem instead.

 

Question 19

The team needs to create a secondary EFS file system that receives ongoing changes without host-level copy scripts, but file-system continuity requires managed replication rather than periodic backup alone. Which option is best? Choose ONE.

1. EC2 Recycle Bin
2. RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery
3. EFS replication
4. DynamoDB point-in-time recovery

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. EC2 Recycle Bin fits situations that require teams to recover accidentally deleted snapshots or AMIs. The case hinges on file-system continuity requires managed replication rather than periodic backup alone. The team must create a secondary EFS file system that receives ongoing changes without host-level copy scripts. Its primary role differs from this need.
2. RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery is intended to recover an RDS database to a precise earlier time. Decisive fact: file-system continuity requires managed replication rather than periodic backup alone; requested action: create a secondary EFS file system that receives ongoing changes without host-level copy scripts. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
3. EFS replication continuously replicates an Amazon EFS file system to another file system in the same or another Region. Requirement: create a secondary EFS file system that receives ongoing changes without host-level copy scripts; key constraint: file-system continuity requires managed replication rather than periodic backup alone. That makes this the strongest fit.
4. DynamoDB point-in-time recovery addresses the need to recover a DynamoDB table to an earlier point after accidental writes. Case: file-system continuity requires managed replication rather than periodic backup alone; required action: create a secondary EFS file system that receives ongoing changes without host-level copy scripts. This solves a neighboring problem instead.

 

Question 20

Given that operations needs a deletion-recovery safety net for EBS-backed AMIs, which approach most directly lets the team preserve deleted machine images temporarily so mistakes can be reversed? Choose ONE.

1. DynamoDB point-in-time recovery
2. EC2 Recycle Bin
3. RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery
4. EFS replication

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. DynamoDB point-in-time recovery can help a team recover a DynamoDB table to an earlier point after accidental writes. Here, operations needs a deletion-recovery safety net for EBS-backed AMIs; design must preserve deleted machine images temporarily so mistakes can be reversed. That capability is not the required control.
2. EC2 Recycle Bin primarily retains deleted EBS snapshots and EBS-backed AMIs for a rule-defined period so they can be recovered. Given operations needs a deletion-recovery safety net for EBS-backed AMIs, the relevant choice must preserve deleted machine images temporarily so mistakes can be reversed. This addresses the decision at the right layer.
3. RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery supports teams that need to recover an RDS database to a precise earlier time. Requirement: preserve deleted machine images temporarily so mistakes can be reversed; key constraint: operations needs a deletion-recovery safety net for EBS-backed AMIs. This does not deliver the requested outcome.
4. EFS replication addresses the need to maintain an asynchronously replicated EFS copy. Limiting condition: operations needs a deletion-recovery safety net for EBS-backed AMIs; solution must preserve deleted machine images temporarily so mistakes can be reversed. This solves a neighboring problem instead.

• < Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Data Governance, Backup, Replication, Retention, Lifecycle, and Access Controls Practice Test 1
• Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Event-Driven Architectures, APIs, Queues, Messaging, and Workflow Orchestration Practice Test 1 >