SAA-C03 Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate (SAA-C03)

If the SQS visibility timeout is set shorter than the time it takes for the application to process and delete the message, the message becomes visible to other consumers and can be processed again, resulting in duplicate processing. This is a common cause of duplicate messages when using SQS.

Reference Extract from AWS Documentation / Study Guide:

" If the visibility timeout for a message is set shorter than the time it takes to process the message, the message becomes visible again and can be received and processed again, resulting in duplicate processing. "

Source: AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Official Study Guide, SQS and Messaging section.

For maximum resiliency and fault tolerance in a mission-critical scenario, AWS recommends redundant Direct Connect connections from multiple data centers to multiple AWS Direct Connect locations.

This protects against:

Data center failure

Device failure

Location outages

“For workloads that require high availability, we recommend that you use multiple Direct Connect connections at multiple Direct Connect locations.”

— AWS Direct Connect Resiliency Recommendations

Option C follows AWS maximum resiliency model.

To enforce that IAM users can only access Amazon RDS and no other AWS services, the recommended approach is to use a Deny statement with NotAction. This ensures that all actions are denied except RDS actions. Options A and B do not fully achieve the restriction: A only allows RDS but does not explicitly deny access to other services if another policy grants access; B’s explicit Deny for “*” would override all other permissions, including the intended RDS Allow, which would result in no access at all. Option D with permissions boundaries still allows other attached policies to grant access outside RDS. Therefore, C is the correct approach to enforce RDS-only access.

Amazon CloudFront is a content delivery network (CDN) service that distributes content with low latency and high transfer speeds. Placing CloudFront in front of the S3 bucket ensures globalusers download content from the nearest edge location, reducing latency significantly.

This solution is the most suitable for running cron jobs on AWS with minimal refactoring, while also supporting the possibility of running jobs in response to future events.

Container Image for Cron Jobs: By containerizing the cron jobs, you can package the environment and dependencies required to run the jobs, ensuring consistency and ease of deployment across different environments.

Amazon EventBridge Scheduler: EventBridge Scheduler allows you to create a recurring schedule that can trigger tasks (like running your cron jobs) at specific times or intervals. It provides fine-grained control over scheduling and integrates seamlessly with AWS services.

AWS Fargate: Fargate is a serverless compute engine for containers that removes the need to manage EC2 instances. It allows you to run containers without worrying about the underlying infrastructure. Fargate is ideal for running jobs that can vary in duration, like cron jobs, as it scales automatically based on the task ' s requirements.

Why Not Other Options?:

Option A (Lambda): While AWS Lambda could handle short-running cron jobs, it has limitations in terms of execution duration (maximum of 15 minutes) and might not be suitable for jobs that run up to 20 minutes.

Option B (AWS Batch on ECS): AWS Batch is more suitable for batch processing and workloads that require complex job dependencies or orchestration, which might be more than what is needed for simple cron jobs.

Option D (Step Functions with Wait State): While Step Functions provide orchestration capabilities, this approach would introduce unnecessary complexity and overhead compared to the straightforward scheduling with EventBridge and running on Fargate.

AWS References:

Amazon EventBridge Scheduler- Details on how to schedule tasks using Amazon EventBridge Scheduler.

AWS Fargate- Information on how to run containers in a serverless manner using AWS Fargate.

With AWS Shield Advanced, you can add multiple protected resources (like ALBs) to a protection group and choose an aggregation type for mitigation and billing.

Sum aggregation provides combined protection for all resources in the group during blue/green deployment.

“You can add multiple resources to a Shield Advanced protection group and choose an aggregation type. Sum aggregation provides combined protection across all resources.”

— Shield Advanced Protection Groups

This ensures the new ALB inherits protection and avoids additional configuration during deployment.

The most scalable and managed solution for streaming ingestion, real-time transformation, and delivery to Amazon S3 is Amazon Kinesis Data Streams, Amazon Managed Service for Apache Flink, and Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose.

From AWS Documentation:

“Amazon Kinesis Data Streams enables real-time processing of streaming data at massive scale. With Apache Flink on Kinesis Data Analytics, you can process data streams in near real-time, then use Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose to reliably deliver that data to S3.”

(Source: Amazon Kinesis Developer Guide)

Why A is correct:

Fully managed: All services involved are serverless and managed.

Real-time ingestion: Kinesis Data Streams supports sub-second latency and can handle high-throughput workloads like 100,000+ devices.

Near real-time processing: Apache Flink is designed for continuous stream processing with complex event handling.

Efficient delivery: Kinesis Firehose delivers processed data directly to S3 with retry and backup capability.

Why other options are incorrect:

Option B: SQS is not optimized for real-time streaming at high volume.

Option C: EC2 + Kafka + EMR adds high operational overhead and cost.

Option D: EventBridge is event-driven, not designed for high-throughput streaming; AWS Batch is unsuitable for near real-time processing.

The question asks for the most cost savings while not affecting application performance, and it explicitly calls out both compute costs and storage costs increasing. The best answer is the option that optimizes both cost drivers without reducing capacity needed for peak performance. Option D accomplishes this by combining two well-established cost optimization mechanisms: a Compute Savings Plan for baseline compute usage and S3 Lifecycle policies for lower-cost storage of older receipt images.

A Compute Savings Plan is best applied to the steady, always-needed portion of compute capacity. In an Auto Scaling group, there is typically a predictable minimum footprint that runs continuously. Purchasing a Savings Plan for that baseline delivers substantial discounts compared with On-Demand pricing while keeping performance unchanged. For traffic spikes, continuing to use On-Demand Instances is operationally simple and preserves scaling behavior and customer experience. This avoids the risk that reducing minimum capacity could introduce slower scale-out or insufficient resources during sudden load.

On the storage side, raw receipt images are stored in Amazon S3, and many applications access the newest objects most frequently. Using S3 Lifecycle policies to transition objects after 30 days to lower-cost tiers (such as infrequent access or archival tiers as appropriate for retrieval needs) reduces storage spend without changing how new uploads are handled or processed. It also keeps the application fast for recent receipts, where performance typically matters most.

Options A and B move storage to EFS, which is generally more expensive than S3 for object storage patterns and does not align with “stored as objects.” Option C reduces the maximum Auto Scaling capacity, which can directly harm performance during demand surges. Therefore, D provides the largest cost reduction while preserving performance and scaling characteristics.