Visit here for our full Amazon AWS Certified Developer – Associate DVA-C02 exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 121
A developer is implementing a solution to process real-time clickstream data from a website. The solution must handle high throughput and allow multiple consumers to process the same data independently. Which AWS service is most appropriate?
A) Amazon SQS
B) Amazon Kinesis Data Streams
C) AWS Lambda alone
D) Amazon S3
Answer: B
Explanation:
Amazon Kinesis Data Streams is the most appropriate service for processing real-time clickstream data with high throughput and multiple independent consumers. Kinesis Data Streams provides durable, real-time data streaming with ordering guarantees within shards. Multiple consumers can read from the same stream independently without affecting each other, enabling parallel processing for different analytics, monitoring, or archival purposes. Streams retain data for 24 hours to 365 days, allowing late-arriving consumers to process historical data. Kinesis handles high throughput through horizontal scaling with shards, supporting millions of events per second. Enhanced fan-out provides dedicated throughput for each consumer.
Option A is incorrect because Amazon SQS provides message queuing where each message is consumed by exactly one consumer, not multiple independent consumers processing the same data. While SQS handles high throughput and supports fan-out through SNS integration, it doesn’t maintain message ordering or allow multiple consumers to read identical message streams independently. SQS deletes messages after successful consumption, preventing other consumers from processing the same data. For scenarios requiring multiple consumers processing identical data streams, Kinesis provides appropriate fan-out capabilities that SQS lacks.
Option C is incorrect because AWS Lambda alone is a compute service that executes code in response to events but doesn’t provide data streaming infrastructure. Lambda can consume from Kinesis or SQS but doesn’t capture, buffer, or distribute streaming data. Lambda needs a streaming source like Kinesis to trigger executions for real-time data processing. While Lambda is often part of streaming architectures as a consumer, it cannot replace the streaming infrastructure that Kinesis provides for data capture and distribution.
Option D is incorrect because Amazon S3 is object storage optimized for storing files and data at rest, not real-time data streaming. S3 doesn’t provide the sub-second latency, ordering guarantees, or multiple consumer fan-out capabilities required for real-time clickstream processing. While S3 can be a destination for processed clickstream data or long-term archival, it cannot replace real-time streaming infrastructure. S3 serves different purposes than real-time data streaming that Kinesis addresses.
Question 122
A developer needs to ensure that a Lambda function processes messages from an SQS queue in the exact order they were sent. Which type of SQS queue should be used?
A) Standard queue
B) FIFO queue
C) Dead-letter queue
D) Delay queue
Answer: B
Explanation:
FIFO (First-In-First-Out) queue ensures that messages are processed in the exact order they were sent, maintaining strict ordering for Lambda function processing. FIFO queues guarantee that messages are delivered exactly once and in the precise order they were sent. Message groups within FIFO queues enable parallel processing while maintaining ordering within each group. FIFO queues support up to 3,000 messages per second with batching (300 without), sufficient for many ordering-dependent workflows. Lambda’s integration with FIFO queues respects ordering, processing messages sequentially within message groups to preserve order.
Option A is incorrect because Standard queues provide best-effort ordering but don’t guarantee strict message sequence. Standard queues may deliver messages in different order than they were sent, and messages might be delivered more than once. While Standard queues offer higher throughput (nearly unlimited) and work well for scenarios where ordering isn’t critical, they cannot ensure the exact ordering that FIFO queues provide. Applications requiring strict ordering must use FIFO queues despite the throughput limitations.
Option C is incorrect because dead-letter queues are destinations for messages that fail processing after maximum receive attempts, not a queue type for ordering. DLQs capture problematic messages for investigation and recovery but don’t provide ordering guarantees. Both Standard and FIFO queues can have associated DLQs, but DLQ is a failure handling mechanism, not an ordering solution. DLQs complement queue ordering strategies but don’t establish ordering themselves.
Option D is incorrect because delay queues postpone message delivery for a specified period but don’t provide ordering guarantees. Delay queues are Standard queues with default delay applied to all messages. While delays can be useful for implementing wait periods or scheduled processing, they don’t ensure processing order. Delayed messages still experience the same best-effort ordering of Standard queues. For strict ordering requirements, FIFO queues are necessary regardless of delay needs.
Question 123
A developer is building a REST API with API Gateway that needs to transform incoming JSON requests before passing them to a Lambda function. Which API Gateway feature accomplishes this?
A) Request validation
B) Request mapping templates
C) Response models
D) API keys
Answer: B
Explanation:
Request mapping templates in API Gateway transform incoming JSON requests before passing them to backend integrations like Lambda. Mapping templates use Velocity Template Language (VTL) to access request elements including body, headers, query parameters, and path parameters. Templates can restructure JSON, extract specific fields, add or remove properties, and transform data types before forwarding requests to Lambda. This enables adapting client request formats to backend expectations without modifying client code or Lambda functions. Request templates provide integration layer flexibility for data transformation.
Option A is incorrect because request validation ensures incoming requests match defined schemas and parameter requirements but doesn’t transform request structure or content. Validation accepts or rejects requests based on conformance to schemas, providing quality control without modification. While validation improves API reliability by rejecting malformed requests, it doesn’t perform the data transformation that mapping templates provide. Validation and transformation serve different purposes in API request processing.
Option C is incorrect because response models define the structure of API responses for documentation and validation but don’t transform incoming requests. Response models describe what clients should expect in responses and can validate outgoing responses against schemas. Request transformation requires request mapping templates, not response models. Models are primarily documentation and validation tools rather than transformation mechanisms.
Option D is incorrect because API keys identify clients for usage tracking, throttling, and quota management but don’t transform request data. API keys provide client identification and access control without modifying request content or structure. While API keys are important for API management, they don’t perform the data transformation that mapping templates provide. Keys and transformation address completely different API Gateway capabilities.
Question 124
A developer needs to deploy a Lambda function that requires 4 GB of memory and may run for up to 10 minutes. Is this configuration supported by AWS Lambda?
A) Yes, Lambda supports up to 10 GB of memory and 15 minutes timeout
B) No, Lambda only supports up to 3 GB of memory
C) No, Lambda maximum timeout is 5 minutes
D) No, Lambda cannot allocate more than 1 GB of memory
Answer: A
Explanation:
Yes, Lambda supports up to 10 GB of memory and 15 minutes timeout, making the 4 GB memory and 10-minute execution configuration fully supported. Lambda memory can be configured from 128 MB to 10,240 MB (10 GB) in 1 MB increments, with CPU allocation proportional to memory. Timeout can be set from 1 second to 900 seconds (15 minutes). The requested configuration of 4 GB memory and 10-minute timeout falls well within Lambda’s limits, enabling processing of larger datasets and longer-running operations while maintaining serverless benefits.
Option B is incorrect because Lambda supports significantly more than 3 GB of memory, with the actual limit being 10 GB. The 3 GB figure might represent a previous or misremembered limit but doesn’t reflect current Lambda capabilities. AWS has progressively increased Lambda’s memory limit to support more demanding workloads. Organizations can leverage up to 10 GB of memory for memory-intensive operations like video processing, machine learning inference, or large data transformations.
Option C is incorrect because Lambda’s maximum timeout is 15 minutes, not 5 minutes. While 5 minutes was a historical Lambda limit from several years ago, AWS extended the maximum timeout to support longer-running operations. The current 15-minute maximum accommodates workloads requiring extended processing time while maintaining Lambda’s serverless model. For operations exceeding 15 minutes, alternative services like ECS, Fargate, or Step Functions orchestrating multiple Lambda invocations should be considered.
Option D is incorrect because Lambda supports memory allocations up to 10 GB, far exceeding 1 GB. The 1 GB figure severely underestimates Lambda’s capabilities. Higher memory allocations also provide proportionally more CPU power, enabling faster processing for compute-intensive workloads. Lambda’s flexibility in memory allocation allows optimization for various workload types from lightweight API handlers to memory-intensive data processing functions.
Question 125
A developer is implementing a microservice that needs to store user session data with fast read and write access. The data doesn’t need to be queried with complex filters. Which AWS database service is most appropriate?
A) Amazon RDS
B) Amazon DynamoDB
C) Amazon Redshift
D) Amazon Neptune
Answer: B
Explanation:
Amazon DynamoDB is the most appropriate service for storing user session data requiring fast read and write access with simple key-based lookups. DynamoDB provides consistent single-digit millisecond latency at any scale, making it ideal for session data where speed is critical. Session data typically uses simple key-value access patterns (user ID as key, session data as value) without complex querying needs, perfectly matching DynamoDB’s strengths. DynamoDB offers automatic scaling, high availability, and seamless integration with AWS services. Time To Live (TTL) enables automatic session expiration without additional code.
Option A is incorrect because Amazon RDS provides managed relational databases optimized for complex queries with ACID transactions but offers higher latency than DynamoDB for simple key-value operations. RDS suits applications requiring relational data models, complex joins, and SQL querying. For session data with simple access patterns and latency requirements, RDS introduces unnecessary complexity and cost. RDS excels at relational workloads but DynamoDB provides better performance and scalability for key-value session storage.
Option C is incorrect because Amazon Redshift is a data warehouse optimized for analytics queries on large datasets, not operational session storage. Redshift provides columnar storage and massively parallel query processing for analytical workloads but isn’t designed for transactional operations or low-latency key-value access. Using Redshift for session storage would introduce inappropriate architecture, high costs, and poor performance. Redshift serves analytical use cases, not operational data storage requiring fast reads and writes.
Option D is incorrect because Amazon Neptune is a graph database optimized for storing and querying highly connected data with complex relationships. Neptune excels at social networks, recommendation engines, and knowledge graphs but provides unnecessary complexity for simple session storage. Session data doesn’t typically involve complex graph relationships requiring graph database capabilities. Neptune’s specialized graph features don’t benefit session storage scenarios that DynamoDB handles more efficiently and cost-effectively.
Question 126
A developer is building a serverless application using SAM (Serverless Application Model). Which file defines the application’s AWS resources?
A)json
B)yaml
C)py
D)json
Answer: B
Explanation:
The template.yaml file defines AWS resources in SAM (Serverless Application Model) applications, serving as the infrastructure as code definition. SAM templates use simplified syntax extending CloudFormation to define Lambda functions, API Gateway APIs, DynamoDB tables, and other resources. The template.yaml file specifies resource properties, configurations, and relationships between components. SAM CLI uses this template to build, test locally, and deploy applications to AWS. Transform directive in templates indicates SAM template processing, converting simplified SAM syntax to full CloudFormation templates during deployment.
Option A is incorrect because package.json is a Node.js project configuration file defining dependencies, scripts, and project metadata, not AWS infrastructure resources. While Node.js Lambda functions may include package.json for dependency management, this file doesn’t define AWS resources or infrastructure. SAM templates handle infrastructure definition separately from application code and dependencies. Package.json and template.yaml serve different purposes, with package.json managing application dependencies and template.yaml defining cloud infrastructure.
Option C is incorrect because app.py is typically a Python application source code file containing business logic, not infrastructure definition. Application code implements function behavior but doesn’t define AWS resources, IAM roles, or service configurations. SAM separates infrastructure definition (template.yaml) from application code (app.py, index.js, etc.), following infrastructure as code principles. Code files contain runtime logic while template files declare infrastructure resources.
Option D is incorrect because config.json is not a standard SAM file for defining AWS resources. While applications might use config.json for application-specific configuration values, SAM doesn’t use this file for infrastructure definition. SAM relies on template.yaml (or template.json) following CloudFormation syntax with SAM-specific resource types. Configuration files might supplement templates for environment-specific values but don’t replace template.yaml as the primary infrastructure definition.
Question 127
A developer needs to implement a solution where Lambda functions across multiple AWS accounts can access a centralized secrets stored in AWS Secrets Manager. How should this be configured?
A) Copy secrets to each AWS account manually
B) Use Secrets Manager resource-based policies to grant cross-account access
C) Store secrets in S3 buckets in each account
D) Email secrets to each account administrator
Answer: B
Explanation:
Using Secrets Manager resource-based policies to grant cross-account access enables Lambda functions in multiple AWS accounts to access centralized secrets without duplication. Resource-based policies attached to secrets specify which external accounts or IAM roles can retrieve secret values. Combined with IAM policies in consuming accounts granting permission to access specific secrets, this establishes secure cross-account secret sharing. This approach centralizes secret management, simplifies rotation, and maintains audit trails of all access across accounts. Cross-account access follows principle of least privilege by granting only necessary permissions.
Option A is incorrect because manually copying secrets to each AWS account creates management nightmares with duplicated secrets requiring synchronized updates across accounts. When secrets rotate, all copies must be updated simultaneously to prevent access failures. Manual copying increases security risks, operational overhead, and likelihood of inconsistencies between accounts. Centralized secret management with cross-account access provides better security, simpler operations, and consistent secret values across all consuming accounts.
Option C is incorrect because storing secrets in S3 buckets doesn’t provide the encryption, rotation, and access management features that Secrets Manager offers. S3 is object storage without built-in secret rotation, comprehensive audit logging of secret access, or specialized secret management capabilities. While S3 buckets could technically store secrets, this approach lacks security features and management simplicity that Secrets Manager provides. Secrets Manager is purpose-built for secret management with features S3 doesn’t offer.
Option D is incorrect because emailing secrets to account administrators is catastrophically insecure and violates every security best practice. Email transmits secrets unencrypted, creates copies in email servers and client systems, and leaves secrets visible in email history. Email provides no access control, audit logging, or rotation capabilities. Secrets distributed via email become impossible to rotate effectively and may be stored insecurely. Secrets Manager with resource-based policies provides secure, auditable cross-account access that email cannot achieve.
Question 128
A developer is deploying a Lambda function that needs to access environment-specific configuration values (database endpoints, API URLs) that differ between development, staging, and production. What is the best approach?
A) Hard-code values in Lambda code with conditional logic for each environment
B) Use Lambda environment variables set differently for each environment’s function
C) Store all environment values in a single global variable
D) Prompt users to input values at runtime
Answer: B
Explanation:
Using Lambda environment variables set differently for each environment’s function provides the best approach for environment-specific configuration. Environment variables allow defining configuration values outside code, with each Lambda function version or alias having distinct variable values. Development, staging, and production functions use identical code with different environment variable values for database endpoints, API URLs, or feature flags. This approach supports proper CI/CD practices where code promotes through environments unchanged while configuration adapts. Environment variables can be encrypted with KMS for sensitive values.
Option A is incorrect because hard-coding values with conditional logic for environments embeds configuration in code, requiring code changes when environment configurations change. Conditional logic like “if environment == ‘production'” creates maintenance burden and increases deployment risks. Configuration should be externalized from code to enable deploying identical code across environments with only configuration differences. Hard-coded conditional logic violates separation of code and configuration principles, making applications harder to maintain and deploy.
Option C is incorrect because storing all environment values in a single global variable doesn’t provide environment-specific configuration and would require all functions across all environments to share identical configuration values. Global variables don’t differentiate between development, staging, and production needs. This approach forces using same database endpoints and API URLs regardless of environment, making it impossible to test safely in non-production environments. Environment-specific configuration requires per-function or per-environment values.
Option D is incorrect because prompting users to input values at runtime is completely inappropriate for automated Lambda function execution. Lambda functions execute in response to events without user interaction, making runtime prompts impossible. Functions need configuration available immediately during initialization or execution without human input. Runtime prompts would cause function failures and violate serverless execution model. Configuration must be available automatically through environment variables, parameter stores, or similar mechanisms.
Question 129
A developer is implementing an API that needs to return large datasets (> 10 MB payload). API Gateway has payload size limits. What is the maximum response payload size for API Gateway?
A) 1 MB
B) 6 MB
C) 10 MB
D) Unlimited
Answer: C
Explanation:
The maximum response payload size for API Gateway is 10 MB for both request and response payloads. This hard limit applies to all API Gateway endpoint types (REST, HTTP, WebSocket). When responses exceed 10 MB, alternative architectures are required such as returning pre-signed S3 URLs for clients to download large content directly from S3, implementing pagination to return data in smaller chunks, or using direct service-to-service communication bypassing API Gateway. Streaming responses through CloudFront or using WebSocket APIs for chunked transfer can also address large payload scenarios.
Option A is incorrect because 1 MB is significantly smaller than API Gateway’s actual 10 MB payload limit. While 1 MB might represent a reasonable response size for many APIs to maintain performance, it’s not the actual limit. Understanding the true 10 MB limit helps architects design appropriate solutions. For responses approaching limits, optimization strategies like compression, pagination, or S3 pre-signed URLs should be considered, but the actual limit is 10 MB.
Option B is incorrect because 6 MB understates API Gateway’s maximum payload size. The actual 10 MB limit provides more flexibility for response sizes. While 6 MB might be a reasonable soft limit for performance and user experience, it’s not the hard platform constraint. Architectures can safely support responses up to 10 MB through API Gateway, though best practices often recommend keeping responses smaller for optimal performance.
Option D is incorrect because API Gateway definitely has payload size limits, not unlimited capacity. The 10 MB maximum is a documented constraint of the service protecting infrastructure and ensuring reasonable response times. Unlimited payloads would enable abuse, create performance issues, and complicate infrastructure management. For scenarios genuinely requiring unlimited or very large payloads, alternative approaches like direct S3 access, streaming services, or dedicated download APIs should be implemented outside API Gateway constraints.
Question 130
A developer is implementing a Lambda function that occasionally receives duplicate events from an event source. How should the function be designed to handle idempotency?
A) Ignore the requirement since Lambda prevents all duplicates
B) Implement idempotency using unique identifiers and state tracking
C) Process every event regardless of duplicates
D) Throw exceptions for all duplicate events
Answer: B
Explanation:
Implementing idempotency using unique identifiers and state tracking ensures functions handle duplicate events safely without unintended side effects. Idempotent design checks if operations were already performed using unique event identifiers, typically storing processed identifiers in DynamoDB with conditional writes to prevent race conditions. For example, payment processing functions verify payment IDs weren’t already processed before charging cards. Idempotency tokens, correlation IDs, or natural business keys identify unique operations. This pattern is essential for reliable distributed systems where event sources may deliver messages multiple times due to retries or at-least-once delivery guarantees.
Option A is incorrect because Lambda cannot prevent all duplicate events as some event sources (SQS, SNS, S3 events, etc.) provide at-least-once delivery guarantees, potentially delivering events multiple times. Lambda itself doesn’t deduplicate events from sources. Applications must implement idempotency to handle duplicates safely. Assuming Lambda eliminates all duplicates creates risks when duplicates occur, potentially causing double-processing like duplicate charges, inventory deductions, or notifications. Proper serverless design always considers idempotency.
Option C is incorrect because processing every event regardless of duplicates can cause serious issues including duplicate charges, incorrect state, resource exhaustion, or cascading failures. Blindly processing duplicates violates idempotency requirements for reliable distributed systems. For operations with side effects (database writes, API calls, payments), duplicate processing creates data inconsistencies and potential financial or customer impact. Functions must detect and skip previously processed events to maintain correctness.
Option D is incorrect because throwing exceptions for duplicate events doesn’t provide graceful idempotency handling and may cause unnecessary retries or failures. Duplicates are expected behavior with at-least-once delivery guarantees and shouldn’t be treated as errors requiring exceptions. Proper idempotency silently identifies and skips duplicate operations without raising exceptions, allowing functions to complete successfully. Exception-based duplicate handling creates noise in monitoring and may trigger unwanted retry loops.
Question 131
A developer needs to implement canary deployments for a Lambda function to gradually roll out new versions. Which Lambda feature supports this deployment pattern?
A) Lambda versions only
B) Lambda aliases with traffic shifting
C) Lambda layers
D) Lambda environment variables
Answer: B
Explanation:
Lambda aliases with traffic shifting support canary deployments by enabling gradual traffic migration between function versions. Aliases like “production” can point to multiple weighted versions, directing a percentage of traffic to new versions while maintaining most traffic on stable versions. CodeDeploy integrates with Lambda to automate canary deployments, gradually shifting traffic based on CloudWatch alarms and health checks. For example, initially routing 10% of traffic to a new version, monitoring error rates and latency, then progressively increasing traffic if metrics remain healthy. This enables safe deployments with automatic rollback capabilities.
Option A is incorrect because Lambda versions alone provide immutable function snapshots but don’t enable traffic splitting between versions. Versions create numbered snapshots of function code and configuration, useful for versioning and rollback, but don’t implement canary deployment patterns. Traffic splitting requires aliases pointing to multiple weighted versions. Versions are building blocks for deployment strategies but don’t implement canary patterns by themselves. Aliases add the traffic management capabilities needed for progressive deployments.
Option C is incorrect because Lambda layers provide reusable code libraries, dependencies, or custom runtimes shared across functions but don’t implement deployment strategies. Layers enable code sharing and reduce deployment package sizes but have no role in traffic routing or canary deployments. While layers are valuable for code organization, they don’t provide the version management and traffic splitting capabilities that aliases deliver for deployment strategies.
Option D is incorrect because Lambda environment variables store configuration values specific to function versions but don’t control traffic routing or enable canary deployments. Environment variables configure function behavior but don’t implement deployment patterns. While different versions might have different environment variables, variables themselves don’t route traffic or enable progressive deployments. Aliases with weighted routing provide the traffic management needed for canary deployments.
Question 132
A developer is building a web application that needs to authenticate users and provide temporary AWS credentials for accessing S3. Which AWS service provides this capability with support for social identity providers?
A) AWS IAM users
B) Amazon Cognito Identity Pools
C) AWS STS directly
D) Amazon S3 bucket policies only
Answer: B
Explanation:
Amazon Cognito Identity Pools provide user authentication and temporary AWS credentials with support for social identity providers (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple) and custom identity providers. Identity Pools exchange identity provider tokens for temporary AWS credentials through AWS STS, enabling authenticated users to access AWS resources like S3. Identity Pools define IAM roles for authenticated and unauthenticated users, providing appropriate permissions based on authentication status. This enables building secure applications where users authenticate through social providers and receive temporary, scoped AWS credentials for direct resource access without backend proxies.
Option A is incorrect because AWS IAM users are for long-term AWS access, not temporary credentials for application end-users. Creating individual IAM users for application users violates security best practices and doesn’t scale. IAM users are designed for administrators, developers, and service accounts, not consumer application authentication. IAM doesn’t integrate with social identity providers for application user authentication. Cognito specifically addresses application user authentication scenarios that IAM isn’t designed for.
Option C is incorrect because while AWS STS (Security Token Service) generates temporary credentials, it doesn’t handle authentication or social identity provider integration directly. STS is a backend service that Cognito uses internally but doesn’t provide the authentication flows, user management, or identity provider integration that applications need. Applications require complete authentication solutions like Cognito that leverage STS internally rather than calling STS directly. STS is infrastructure for credential generation, not a user-facing authentication service.
Option D is incorrect because Amazon S3 bucket policies control access to S3 resources but don’t provide user authentication or credential issuance. Bucket policies define what actions principals can perform on buckets but don’t authenticate users or integrate with identity providers. Applications need authentication services like Cognito to identify users and issue credentials, then use bucket policies to define what authenticated users can access. Bucket policies are authorization mechanisms, not authentication solutions.
Question 133
A developer is implementing a Lambda function that calls external APIs. The API requires authentication with credentials that must be rotated monthly. Where should these credentials be stored?
A) Lambda environment variables unencrypted
B) AWS Secrets Manager with automatic rotation
C) Hard-coded in the Lambda function code
D) In a public GitHub repository
Answer: B
Explanation:
AWS Secrets Manager with automatic rotation provides the best solution for storing API credentials requiring monthly rotation. Secrets Manager encrypts secrets at rest with KMS, supports automatic rotation through Lambda rotation functions, provides versioning for secret updates, and logs all access through CloudTrail. For API credentials, rotation functions automatically generate new credentials, update both the external API and Secrets Manager, and invalidate old credentials. Lambda functions retrieve current credentials at runtime, ensuring they always use valid credentials without code changes. Secrets Manager simplifies credential lifecycle management with built-in rotation capabilities.
Option A is incorrect because Lambda environment variables, especially unencrypted, don’t support automatic rotation and expose credentials to anyone with function read permissions. Monthly rotation would require updating environment variables and redeploying functions, creating operational overhead. Environment variables lack the rotation automation, versioning, and audit logging that Secrets Manager provides. While environment variables can be encrypted with KMS, they still don’t offer the rotation capabilities needed for regularly changing credentials.
Option C is incorrect because hard-coding credentials in Lambda function code creates severe security vulnerabilities with credentials visible in source code, deployment packages, and version control. Hard-coded credentials require code changes and redeployment for rotation, making monthly rotation extremely burdensome. Credentials in code may be accidentally exposed through code sharing, logging, or security breaches. Secrets Manager enables dynamic credential retrieval maintaining security while automating rotation without code changes.
Option D is incorrect because storing credentials in public GitHub repositories is catastrophically insecure, immediately exposing secrets to anyone on the internet. Public repositories allow anonymous access, making stored credentials available to attackers. This represents one of the most serious security mistakes, frequently leading to compromised systems. Credentials must never be stored in version control, especially public repositories. Secrets Manager provides proper secure storage and rotation capabilities.
Question 134
A developer needs to test a Lambda function locally before deploying to AWS. Which tool provides local Lambda testing capabilities with SAM?
A) AWS CLI only
B) SAM CLI with sam local invoke
C) AWS Management Console
D) Amazon S3
Answer: B
Explanation:
SAM CLI with sam local invoke provides local Lambda testing capabilities, enabling function execution on developer workstations before AWS deployment. SAM CLI uses Docker containers mimicking Lambda execution environment, supporting local testing with different runtime versions. Developers can invoke functions with test events, debug with breakpoints, and iterate quickly without deploying to AWS. SAM local also supports starting local API Gateway (sam local start-api) for testing API integrations. Local testing accelerates development cycles by eliminating deployment delays and AWS costs during development and debugging.
Option A is incorrect because AWS CLI provides command-line interface for managing AWS services but doesn’t support local Lambda execution. AWS CLI can invoke deployed Lambda functions in AWS but cannot run functions locally for development testing. While AWS CLI is essential for AWS interaction, local testing requires SAM CLI or similar tools providing local execution environments. AWS CLI and SAM CLI serve complementary purposes with AWS CLI for cloud operations and SAM CLI adding local development capabilities.
Option C is incorrect because AWS Management Console is the web interface for managing AWS resources but doesn’t provide local testing capabilities. Console enables creating, configuring, and testing Lambda functions in AWS but cannot execute functions on local machines. Console testing requires functions deployed to AWS, incurring delays and costs inappropriate for rapid development iteration. Local testing tools like SAM CLI enable faster development cycles than console-based testing.
Option D is incorrect because Amazon S3 is object storage for files and data, not a Lambda testing tool. S3 stores deployment packages and application assets but doesn’t execute Lambda functions or provide testing capabilities. While Lambda functions might interact with S3, S3 itself cannot test Lambda functions locally or in AWS. Local Lambda testing requires specialized tools like SAM CLI, not storage services.
Question 135
A developer is implementing a microservice that needs to send emails. The solution should handle high volumes and provide delivery tracking. Which AWS service is most appropriate?
A) AWS Lambda with third-party email APIs
B) Amazon SES (Simple Email Service)
C) Amazon SNS with email protocol
D) Amazon S3 with email attachments
Answer: B
Explanation:
Amazon SES (Simple Email Service) is the most appropriate AWS service for sending high-volume emails with delivery tracking. SES provides scalable email sending supporting millions of emails, SMTP interface and APIs for flexible integration, detailed delivery metrics including bounces, complaints, and deliveries, and reputation management features. SES handles email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), manages IP reputation, and provides configuration sets for advanced tracking through SNS or Kinesis Firehose. SES is cost-effective for transactional and marketing emails with built-in compliance and deliverability features.
Option A is incorrect because while Lambda could invoke third-party email APIs, this approach introduces unnecessary complexity, additional costs, external dependencies, and doesn’t leverage native AWS email capabilities. Third-party services may have different pricing models, reliability characteristics, and integration requirements compared to SES. Managing third-party API credentials, handling rate limits, and implementing retry logic adds development overhead. SES provides managed email service specifically designed for AWS workloads without external dependencies.
Option C is incorrect because while Amazon SNS supports email protocol for notifications, it’s designed for simple notifications to small recipient lists, not high-volume transactional or marketing emails. SNS email delivery lacks advanced features like templating, configuration sets, detailed delivery metrics, and reputation management that SES provides. SNS email is appropriate for operational alerts and monitoring notifications but not production email sending at scale. SES is purpose-built for application email sending that SNS email protocol doesn’t adequately support.
Option D is incorrect because Amazon S3 stores files and data but cannot send emails. S3 might store email templates or attachments that email services reference, but S3 itself has no email sending capabilities. Email sending requires SMTP servers or email service APIs that S3 doesn’t provide. While S3 plays roles in email architectures for storing content, dedicated email services like SES are required for actually sending emails.
Question 136
A developer is deploying a Lambda function with a deployment package exceeding 50 MB unzipped. What is the maximum unzipped deployment package size for Lambda?
A) 50 MB
B) 100 MB
C) 250 MB
D) 500 MB
Answer: C
Explanation:
The maximum unzipped deployment package size for Lambda is 250 MB including all layers. This limit applies to the total unzipped size of function code, dependencies, and Lambda layers. Zipped deployment packages must not exceed 50 MB for direct upload or 250 MB when uploaded to S3. For functions approaching size limits, strategies include removing unnecessary dependencies, using Lambda layers to share common code across functions, optimizing package contents, or moving large assets to S3 for runtime download. Understanding these limits helps architects design appropriately sized Lambda functions.
Option A is incorrect because 50 MB is the maximum zipped deployment package size for direct console upload, not the unzipped limit. The unzipped package can be significantly larger at 250 MB. While 50 MB zipped provides substantial capacity, compression often achieves 5:1 or better ratios, allowing larger unzipped content. For packages exceeding 50 MB zipped, S3 upload method supports up to 250 MB zipped. Understanding both zipped and unzipped limits is important for deployment planning.
Option B is incorrect because 100 MB understates Lambda’s actual 250 MB unzipped deployment package limit. While 100 MB might seem like substantial capacity, functions with large dependencies like machine learning libraries, image processing tools, or comprehensive SDKs can easily exceed this size. The actual 250 MB limit provides more flexibility for complex functions while still maintaining reasonable package sizes for serverless execution.
Option D is incorrect because 500 MB exceeds Lambda’s actual 250 MB unzipped deployment package limit. Lambda enforces this limit to ensure reasonable function cold start times and runtime performance. For workloads requiring packages exceeding 250 MB, alternative approaches include Container Image support (up to 10 GB), downloading large assets from S3 at runtime, or using container-based compute services like ECS or Fargate. Understanding actual limits prevents deployment failures.
Question 137
A developer needs to implement caching for frequently accessed data in a web application to improve performance. The cache should be managed separately from the application servers and support automatic expiration of cached items. Which AWS service is most appropriate?
A) Amazon CloudFront
B) Amazon ElastiCache
C) Amazon S3
D) AWS Global Accelerator
Answer: B
Explanation:
Implementing effective caching strategies is crucial for improving application performance, reducing database load, and providing better user experiences. Choosing the right caching solution depends on the specific requirements and architecture of your application.
Amazon ElastiCache is the most appropriate service for this scenario. It is a fully managed in-memory caching service that supports both Redis and Memcached engines. ElastiCache provides sub-millisecond latency for data access, making it ideal for caching frequently accessed data such as database query results, session data, and computed values. It supports automatic expiration through Time-To-Live (TTL) settings, allowing cached items to expire after a specified duration. ElastiCache operates independently from application servers, providing a centralized caching layer that multiple application instances can access.
Amazon CloudFront is a content delivery network service designed for caching and distributing static and dynamic web content globally. While it does provide caching capabilities, it is primarily focused on edge caching for content delivery rather than application-level data caching and does not offer the same flexibility for caching arbitrary application data.
Amazon S3 is an object storage service suitable for storing files and large datasets but is not optimized for the low-latency, high-throughput requirements of application caching. S3 access times are measured in milliseconds rather than microseconds, making it unsuitable for frequent cache operations.
AWS Global Accelerator improves application availability and performance by routing traffic through the AWS global network infrastructure. It does not provide caching capabilities and is focused on network optimization rather than data caching.
ElastiCache Redis also offers advanced features like data persistence, replication, automatic failover, and support for complex data structures, making it highly suitable for production applications requiring reliable and performant caching solutions.
Question 138
A developer is building a microservices application where services need to communicate asynchronously. The solution should decouple services and ensure that messages are processed in the order they are sent for each user. Which AWS service combination is most suitable?
A) Amazon SNS with Lambda functions
B) Amazon SQS Standard Queue with EC2 instances
C) Amazon SQS FIFO Queue with message group IDs
D) Amazon Kinesis Data Streams with Kinesis Data Analytics
Answer: C
Explanation:
Asynchronous communication between microservices is essential for building scalable, loosely coupled architectures. When message ordering is important, selecting the appropriate queuing mechanism becomes critical for maintaining data consistency and application logic integrity.
Amazon SQS FIFO (First-In-First-Out) Queue with message group IDs is the most suitable solution. FIFO queues guarantee that messages are processed exactly once and in the exact order they are sent. By using message group IDs, developers can ensure that messages related to the same user are processed in order while still allowing parallel processing of messages from different users. This provides both ordering guarantees and scalability, as different message groups can be processed concurrently by multiple consumers.
Amazon SNS with Lambda functions provides pub/sub messaging but does not guarantee message ordering. SNS is designed for fan-out scenarios where a single message needs to be delivered to multiple subscribers, and it does not provide the ordering semantics required by this scenario.
Amazon SQS Standard Queue offers high throughput and at-least-once delivery but provides best-effort ordering, meaning messages might be delivered out of order. This makes it unsuitable when strict ordering is required, even though it offers better scalability than FIFO queues.
Amazon Kinesis Data Streams is designed for real-time streaming data processing with ordering guarantees within shards. While it could work, it is more complex and typically used for high-throughput streaming analytics rather than simple message queuing between microservices. Kinesis Data Analytics is for analyzing streaming data, not for service-to-service messaging.
FIFO queues support up to 300 transactions per second per message group, which is suitable for most microservices communication patterns while maintaining the strict ordering requirements needed for user-specific operations.
Question 139
A developer is using AWS Lambda functions that are invoked frequently. The functions experience cold starts that impact performance. Which approach can help reduce cold start latency?
A) Increase the Lambda function timeout value
B) Use provisioned concurrency for the Lambda function
C) Increase the memory allocation for the Lambda function
D) Deploy the Lambda function in multiple regions
Answer: B
Explanation:
Cold starts in AWS Lambda occur when a function is invoked after being idle or when scaling up to handle increased load. During a cold start, AWS must initialize the execution environment, which adds latency to function invocation. Understanding how to mitigate cold starts is important for performance-sensitive applications.
Using provisioned concurrency for the Lambda function is the most effective approach to reduce cold start latency. Provisioned concurrency keeps a specified number of execution environments initialized and ready to respond immediately to invocations. This eliminates cold starts for the provisioned capacity, ensuring consistent low-latency responses. It is particularly beneficial for functions with predictable traffic patterns or strict latency requirements such as user-facing APIs and real-time processing applications.
Increasing the Lambda function timeout value does not reduce cold start latency. The timeout setting only determines how long a function can run before being terminated and does not affect initialization time.
While increasing memory allocation can improve function performance by providing more CPU power proportionally, it has minimal impact on cold start times. Cold starts are primarily caused by environment initialization, which is not significantly affected by memory configuration, though functions with smaller deployment packages may initialize slightly faster.
Deploying the Lambda function in multiple regions improves availability and reduces latency for geographically distributed users but does not eliminate cold starts. Each region would still experience cold starts independently.
Additional strategies to minimize cold start impact include keeping deployment packages small, minimizing initialization code outside the handler function, using Lambda layers for shared dependencies, and implementing warm-up mechanisms for critical functions. However, provisioned concurrency provides the most direct and reliable solution.
Question 140
A developer needs to store user session data for a web application running on multiple EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer. The session data must be shared across all instances. Which solution is most appropriate?
A) Store session data in Amazon S3
B) Store session data in Amazon ElastiCache
C) Store session data locally on each EC2 instance
D) Store session data in Amazon CloudWatch Logs
Answer: B
Explanation:
Managing session data in distributed web applications is a common challenge, especially when applications run across multiple servers. Session data must be accessible to any server that handles a user’s request to maintain consistent user experiences.
Storing session data in Amazon ElastiCache is the most appropriate solution. ElastiCache provides in-memory caching with sub-millisecond latency, making it ideal for storing and retrieving session data quickly. Both Redis and Memcached engines supported by ElastiCache can handle session storage effectively, with Redis offering additional benefits like persistence and advanced data structures. ElastiCache allows all EC2 instances to access the same centralized session store, ensuring users maintain their session state regardless of which instance handles their requests.
Storing session data in Amazon S3 is not optimal because S3 is designed for object storage with higher latency compared to in-memory solutions. Session data requires frequent, low-latency read and write operations that S3 cannot provide efficiently. Additionally, S3’s eventual consistency model for some operations could cause session data inconsistencies.
Storing session data locally on each EC2 instance defeats the purpose of load balancing across multiple instances. Users would be tied to specific instances through sticky sessions, reducing the benefits of horizontal scaling and creating potential problems if an instance fails or is terminated.
Amazon CloudWatch Logs is designed for log aggregation and monitoring, not for storing application session data. It lacks the performance characteristics and access patterns required for session management.
For production applications, ElastiCache with Redis is often preferred due to its support for automatic failover, replication, and backup capabilities, ensuring session data durability and high availability across your application infrastructure.
