https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2017/11/aws-lambda-supports-traffic-shifting-and-phased-deployments-with-aws-codedeploy/

The best option is to use an Auto Scaling group, a Network Load Balancer, Amazon Route 53, and Amazon DynamoDB to create a scalable, highly available, and low-latency online game application. An Auto Scaling group can automatically adjust the number of EC2 instances based on the demand and traffic in each Region. A Network Load Balancer can distribute the incoming traffic across the EC2 instances and handle millions of requests per second. Amazon Route 53 can use latency-based routing to direct the users to the Region that provides the best performance. Amazon DynamoDB global tables can replicate the game metadata across multiple Regions, ensuring consistency and availability of thedata. This approach minimizes the operational overhead and cost, as it leverages fully managed services and avoids custom logic or replication.

Option A is not optimal because using an EC2 Spot Fleet can introduce the risk of losing the EC2 instances if the Spot price exceeds the bid price, which can affect the availability and performance of the game. Using AWS Global Accelerator can improve the network performance, but it is not necessary if Amazon Route 53 can already route the users to the closest Region. Using Amazon RDS for MySQL can store the game metadata, but it requires setting up read replicas and managing the replication lag across Regions, which can increase the complexity and cost.

Option B is not optimal because using geoproximity routing can direct the users to the Region that is geographically closer, but it does not account for the network latency or performance. Using MySQL databases on EC2 instances can store the game metadata, but it requires managing the EC2 instances, the database software, the backups, the patches, and the replication across Regions, which can increase the operational overhead and cost.

Option D is not optimal because using EC2 Global View is not a valid service. Using a custom DNS server on an EC2 instance can redirect the user to the Region that provides the lowest latency, but it requires developing and maintaining the custom logic, as well as managing the EC2 instance, which can increase the operational overhead and cost. Using Amazon Aurora global database can store the game metadata, but it is more expensive and complex than using Amazon DynamoDB global tables.

Auto Scaling groups

Network Load Balancer

Amazon Route 53

Amazon DynamoDB global tables

The company needs the application in the secondary Region to operate independently from the primary Region during disaster recovery. That means both the DynamoDB data and the relational customer data must be present and usable in the secondary Region without cross-Region dependencies at runtime. The company also wants the least development effort, which usually means using native managed replication features rather than building custom replication logic.

For DynamoDB, global tables are the managed multi-Region, multi-active replication feature. Global tables replicate changes between Regions automatically and allow applications in each Region to read and write to local DynamoDB tables, removing dependencies on the primary Region.

For the RDS for MySQL database, the straightforward managed approach for cross-Region disaster recovery with minimal development change is to create a cross-Region read replica in the secondary Region. A read replica uses asynchronous replication to keep data up to date. During a disaster recovery event, the company can promote the read replica in the secondary Region to become a standalone primary database instance. This provides a simple, low-development approach for having the data in the secondary Region. The application in the secondary Region can be configured to use the replica endpoint in normal times and can continue operating with the promoted instance during failover.

Option A combines DynamoDB global tables with an RDS read replica in the secondary Region. This is the least development effort because it uses AWS-managed replication for both data stores and requires only configuration changes and endpoint selection in the secondary application.

Option B is not correct because DAX is a caching layer for DynamoDB, not a replication or disaster recovery mechanism. DAX does not replicate DynamoDB tables into another Region and cannot replace having the DynamoDB data present in the secondary Region.

Option C is incorrect because RDS Multi-AZ is a high availability feature within a single Region, using synchronous replication to a standby in another Availability Zone. Multi-AZ does not create a standby in a different Region, and it does not provide cross-Region DR by itself.

Option D is less desirable because it requires custom development and operations: processing DynamoDB streams, building and operating a replication pipeline, and ensuring correctness and ordering across Regions. This is higher development effort than enabling DynamoDB global tables.

Therefore, using DynamoDB global tables plus an RDS read replica in the secondary Region (option A) meets the DR independence requirement with the least development effort.

The best solution is to turn on the Concurrency Scaling feature for the Amazon Redshift cluster. This feature allows the cluster to automatically add additional capacity to handle bursts of read queries without affecting the performance of write queries. The additional capacity is transparent to the users and is billed separately based on the usage. This solution meets the business requirements of servicing read and write queries at all times andis also cost-effective compared to the other options, which involve provisioning additional resources or resizing the cluster. References: Amazon Redshift Documentation, Concurrency Scaling in Amazon Redshift

C is correct because it converts the single–Availability Zone, single-EC2-instance ECS design into a managed, multi-AZ, self-healing architecture with minimal day-to-day operations. The current design has multiple single points of failure: one EC2 instance for ECS capacity and one Availability Zone for all components. Moving the ECS service to AWS Fargate removes the need to manage EC2 instances (capacity provisioning, patching, and scaling of the container instances) and allows the service to run tasks across multiple Availability Zones for higher availability. On the database side, modifying Aurora PostgreSQL to a Multi-AZ DB cluster (by adding a replica in another AZ) increases availability and supports faster recovery from an AZ failure with AWS-managed failover.

Why the other options are less suitable:

A: Making Aurora Multi-AZ improves database availability, but it does not address the compute layer’s biggest issue: ECS is on a single EC2 instance in one AZ with no auto scaling. RDS Proxy can help with connection management, but it does not fix the application’s single-AZ ECS single-instance availability risk.

B: Cross-Region read replicas and manual failover scripts increase operational burden. Also, it keeps ECS on EC2 (still requires instance management) and introduces a manual failover process, which is the opposite of “least operational overhead.”

D: Multi-Region active-active plus Aurora global database can deliver very high availability, but it adds significant complexity (multi-Region deployment, routing strategy, global database considerations, operational procedures). That is higher operational overhead than a straightforward multi-AZ design using managed services.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/appsync/latest/devguide/graphql-overview.html

AWS AppSync is a fully managed GraphQL service that allows applications to securely access, manipulate, and receive data as well as real-time updates from multiple data sources1. AWS AppSync supports GraphQL subscriptions to perform real-time operations and can push data to clients that choose to listen to specific events from the backend1. AWS AppSync uses WebSockets to establish and maintain a secure connection between the clients and the API endpoint2. Therefore, using AWS AppSync and leveraging WebSockets is a suitable design to reduce comment latency and improve user experience.

The correct answer is A, C, and F. The company wants to host a private DNS namespace, myvpc.example.com, inside AWS and allow on-premises devices to resolve records in that namespace. A Route 53 private hosted zone is the correct hosted zone type because the domain is intended for private VPC resolution, not public internet DNS. To allow DNS queries from the on-premises network into AWS, Route 53 Resolver inbound endpoints are required. The on-premises DNS resolvers then need conditional forwarding rules that forward queries for myvpc.example.com to the IP addresses of the inbound Resolver endpoint. An outbound endpoint is used when AWS resources need to resolve DNS names hosted on premises. That is not the stated requirement here. A public hosted zone would expose records publicly and is not appropriate for private VPC DNS.

===============

Option A is correct because using an Elastic Load Balancer and an Auto Scaling group with a minimum capacity of two instances can improve the availability and scalability of the EC2 instances that host the application. The load balancer can distribute traffic across multiple instances and the Auto Scaling group can replace any unhealthy instances automatically1

Option D is correct because modifying the DB instance to create a Multi-AZ deployment that extends across two Availability Zones can improve the availability and durability of the RDS for MariaDB database. Multi-AZ deployments provide enhanceddata protection and minimize downtime by automatically failing over to astandby replica in another Availability Zone in case of a planned or unplanned outage4

Option F is correct because creating a replication group for the ElastiCache for Redis cluster and enabling Multi-AZ on the cluster can improve the availability and fault tolerance of the in-memory data store. A replication group consists of a primary node and up to five read-only replica nodes that are synchronized with the primary node using asynchronous replication. Multi-AZ allows automatic failover to one of the replicas if the primary node fails or becomes unreachable6

To set up a STARTTLS connection, the SMTP client connects to the Amazon SES SMTP endpoint on port 25, 587, or 2587, issues an EHLO command, and waits for the server toannounce that it supports the STARTTLS SMTP extension. The client then issues the STARTTLS command, initiating TLS negotiation. When negotiation is complete, the client issues an EHLO command over the new encrypted connection, and the SMTP session proceeds normally To set up a TLS Wrapper connection, the SMTP client connects to the Amazon SES SMTP endpoint on port 465 or 2465. The server presents its certificate, the client issues an EHLO command, and the SMTP session proceeds normally.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ses/latest/dg/smtp-connect.html

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cur/latest/userguide/billing-cur-limits.html

The requirement is to allow each OU (which contains multiple accounts) to view a cost breakdown across its accounts. In an AWS Organizations setup with consolidated billing, the management account is the central place where organization-level cost and usage reporting is configured and aggregated. The Cost and Usage Report is designed to produce the most detailed cost and usage dataset, and it can include charges for linked (member) accounts. A single CUR created from the management account can include all accounts in the organization, and then filtering can be applied to show cost breakdowns per OU or per team.

Once the CUR is delivered to Amazon S3, analytics tools such as Amazon Athena and Amazon QuickSight can be used to create dashboards. Teams can be provided access to the dataset or curated views and can filter by linked account, tags, and other dimensions. With appropriate cost allocation tags and organizational mapping (for example, account-to-OU mapping maintained in reporting logic), each OU can see its consolidated view.

Option B meets the requirements because it creates one CUR centrally from the management account and uses QuickSight for visualization. This approach is scalable for hundreds of accounts and avoids duplicating CUR configuration in each member account.

Option A is incorrect because AWS Resource Access Manager is not used to create CURs per OU. CUR is not an OU-scoped resource created via RAM.

Option C is not operationally efficient because it requires creating and managing CURs in each member account, producing fragmented datasets and significantly increasing overhead at hundreds of accounts. It also makes it harder to generate a single view per OU across accounts.

Option D is incorrect because Systems Manager does not create CURs, and OpsCenter dashboards are not the standard tool for cost and usage reporting.

Therefore, a centrally created CUR in the management account with QuickSight visualization is the correct solution.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECR/latest/userguide/ecr-eventbridge.html " Activating an AWS Step Functions state machine " https://docs.aws.amazon.com/step-functions/latest/dg/tutorial-creating-lambda-state-machine.html

https://aws.amazon.com/migration-evaluator/features/

This solution will meet the requirements of the company as it provides a secure, cost-effective and fast way of transferring large data sets from on-premises to AWS. Snowball Edge devices encrypt the data during transfer, and the devices are shipped back to AWS for import into S3. This option is more cost effective than using Direct Connect or VPN connections as it does not require the company to pay for long-term dedicated connections.

The best solution is to modify the Kinesis Data Firehose configuration and Athena table definition to partition the data by date and time. This will reduce the amount of data scanned by Athena and improve the query performance. Changing the Athena query to view the relevant partitions will also help to filter out unnecessary data. This solution requires minimal operational overhead as it does not involve creating additional resources or changing the log format. References: [AWS WAF Developer Guide], [Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose User Guide] , [Amazon Athena User Guide]

The best solution is to provision a new Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system that uses Max I/O performance mode and mount the EFS file system on each EC2 instance in the cluster. Amazon EFS is a fully managed, scalable, and elastic file storage service that supports the POSIX standard and can be accessed by multiple EC2 instances concurrently. Amazon EFS offers two performance modes: General Purpose and Max I/O. Max I/O mode is designed for highly parallelized workloads that can tolerate higher latencies than the General Purpose mode. Max I/O mode provides higher levels of aggregate throughput and operations per second, which are suitable for big data analytics applications. This solution meets all the requirements of the company. References: Amazon EFS Documentation, Amazon EFS performance modes