According to the AWS documentation1, AWS App2Container (A2C) is a command line tool for migrating and modernizing Java and .NET web applications into container format. AWS A2C analyzes and builds an inventory of applications running in bare metal, virtual machines, Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) instances, or in the cloud. You can use AWS A2C to generate container images for your applications and deploy them on Amazon ECS or Amazon EKS.

Option A meets the requirements of the scenario because it allows you to migrate your existing Java application to AWS and minimize the administrative overhead to maintain the servers. You can use AWS A2C to analyze your application dependencies, extract application artifacts, and generate a Dockerfile. You can then store your container images in Amazon ECR, which is a fully managed container registry service. You can use AWS Fargate as the launch type for your Amazon ECS cluster, which is a serverless compute engine that eliminates the need to provision and manage servers for your containers. You can grant the ECS task execution role permission to access the ECR image repository, which allows your tasks to pull images from ECR. You can configure Amazon ECS to use an ALB, whichis a load balancer that distributes traffic across multiple targets in multiple Availability Zones using HTTP or HTTPS protocols. You can use the ALB to interact with your application.

Option A is incorrect because creating an SCP to set a fixed monthly account usage limit is not possible. SCPs are policies that specify the services and actions that users and roles can use in the member accounts of an AWS Organization. SCPscannot enforce budget limits or prevent users from launching costly services or running services unnecessarily1

Option B is correct because using AWS Budgets to create a fixed monthly budget for each developer’s account as part of the account creation process meets the requirement of giving developers a fixed monthly budget to limit their AWS costs. AWS Budgets allows you to plan your service usage, service costs, and instance reservations. You can create budgets that alert you when your costs or usage exceed (or are forecasted to exceed) your budgeted amount2

Option C is correct because creating an SCP to deny access to costly services and components meets the requirement of ensuring that developers are not launching costly services or running services unnecessarily. SCPs can restrict access to certain AWS services or actions based on conditions such as region, resource tags, or request time. For example, an SCP can deny access to Amazon Redshift clusters or Amazon EC2 instances with certain instance types1

Option D is incorrect because creating an IAM policy to deny access to costly services and components is not sufficient to meet the requirement of ensuring that developers are not launching costly services or running services unnecessarily. IAM policies can only control access to resources within a single AWS account. If developers have multiple accounts or can create new accounts, they can bypass the IAMpolicy restrictions. SCPs can apply across multiple accounts within an AWS Organization and prevent users from creating new accounts that do not comply with the SCP rules3

Option E is incorrect because creating an AWS Budgets alert action to terminate services when the budgeted amount is reached is not possible. AWS Budgets alert actions can only perform one of the following actions: apply an IAM policy, apply an SCP, or send a notification through Amazon SNS.AWS Budgets alert actions cannot terminate services directly.

Option F is correct because creating an AWS Budgets alert action to send an Amazon SNS notification when the budgeted amount is reached and invoking an AWS Lambda function to terminate all services meets the requirement of giving developers a fixed monthly budget to limit their AWS costs. AWS Budgets alert actions can send notifications through Amazon SNS when a budget threshold is breached. Amazon SNS can trigger an AWS Lambda function that can perform custom logic such as terminating all services in the developer’s account. This way, developers cannot exceed their budget limit and incur additional costs.

The current architecture uses a fleet of small EC2 instances that poll SQS for URLs and write results to EFS. Because URLs arrive only occasionally and each crawl takes 10 seconds or less, EC2 instances are often idle waiting for messages. This leads to unnecessary compute and storage costs.

This workload is naturally event-driven: each URL in the SQS queue triggers a short-lived crawl operation. AWS Lambda is well suited for such event-driven, short-duration tasks. Lambda integrates natively with Amazon SQS as an event source, which allows Lambda to poll the SQS queue automatically and invoke functions when messages arrive, scaling the concurrency up and down as needed. When there are no messages, there are no Lambda invocations and no compute charges, eliminating the cost of idle EC2 instances.

For storage of crawl results, Amazon S3 is a highly durable, cost-effective object store. The current use of an EFS file system mounted on all instances is no longer necessary if each Lambda invocation can write the output directly to S3 as objects (for example, CSV files). S3 charges only for the storage used and requests, and does not require continuously running file system infrastructure.

Option B replaces the idle fleet of EC2 instances with a Lambda function that reads from SQS. This aligns compute usage with actual work and takes advantage of serverless scaling and pricing.

Option E modifies the web-crawling process to store results in Amazon S3 instead of EFS, removing the need to maintain an EFS file system and its associated costs.

Option A increases instance size to m5.8xlarge, which greatly increases capacity and cost. Reducing the number of instances by 50% does not offset the large increase in instance size; it does not address idle capacity and likely increases overall cost.

Option C uses Amazon Neptune, which is a managed graph database service. It is not needed for storing simple CSV output; it is more complex and more expensive than S3 for this use case.

Option D uses Aurora Serverless MySQL. While Aurora Serverless can automatically scale, using a relational database to store simple crawl outputs adds unnecessary cost and operational complexity compared to S3 objects.

Therefore, moving the crawling logic to Lambda triggered by SQS (option B) and writing results directly to Amazon S3 (option E) meets the requirements in the most cost-effective way.

The key requirement is to provide access to a private Git repository while keeping the SageMaker notebook instances isolated from the internet. The environment is intentionally configured without internet access, and connectivity to AWS services is provided through VPC endpoints. Introducing a NAT gateway and routing to the internet would violate the requirement to keep the notebook instances isolated from the internet, and network ACLs cannot reliably restrict outbound access by URL or domain name because NACLs operate at the IP and port level and do not provide DNS-aware URL filtering.

SageMaker supports integrating Git repositories so that notebooks can pull code directly as part of the workflow. When using a private repository, credentials must be handled securely. Using AWS Secrets Manager to store and reference Git credentials allows authentication without embedding usernames and passwords in code or URLs and without granting broad network access. This approach meets the requirement with low operational overhead because it relies on managed SageMaker Git integration and managed secret storage rather than custom networking controls.

Option A uses SageMaker’s Git repository integration with the remote URL and stores credentials in AWS Secrets Manager. This allows notebooks to access the private repository in a controlled, auditable way while preserving the “no internet access” posture of the VPC design (because it does not require adding a NAT gateway or public routes).

Option B is not appropriate because embedding credentials (even just usernames) in URLs is not a secure or robust credential management practice. It also does not solve private authentication in a secure manner and can lead to credential leakage through logs or configuration.

Options C and D are not correct because they require adding a NAT gateway and routing to the internet. That directly conflicts with the requirement that SageMaker notebook instances remain isolated from the internet. Additionally, the proposed restriction mechanism is invalid: network ACLs cannot restrict traffic to a specific URL. They only allow/deny traffic based on IP addresses, ports, and protocols. A Git repository can resolve to multiple IPs, can change IPs, and can use CDNs, making NACL-based IP allowlisting brittle and operationally heavy.

Therefore, integrating the Git repository with SageMaker and using Secrets Manager for credentials is the best solution with the least operational overhead while maintaining internet isolation.

The best solution is to create an AWS WAF web ACL and configure a rule to block any requests that do not originate from the specified country. This will ensure that only users from the allowed country can access the application. AWS WAF also provides logging capabilities that can capture the access requests that have been blocked. This solution requires the least possible maintenance as it does not involve updating IP ranges or security group rules. References: [AWS WAF Developer Guide], [AWS Shield Developer Guide]

Create an S3 Bucket:

Navigate to Amazon S3 in the AWS Management Console and create a new S3 bucket to store the game files.Enable static website hosting on this bucket.

Upload Game Files:

Upload the 5 GB game release package to the S3 bucket. Ensure that the files are publicly accessible if required for download.

Configure Amazon Route 53:

Set up a new domain or subdomain in Amazon Route 53 and point it to the S3 bucket. This allows users to access the game files using a custom URL.

Use Amazon CloudFront:

Create a CloudFront distribution with the S3 bucket as the origin. CloudFront is a content delivery network (CDN) that caches content at edge locations worldwide, improving download performance and reducing latency for users regardless of their location.

Publish the Download URL:

Use the CloudFront distribution URL as the download link for users to access the game files. CloudFront will handle the efficient distribution and caching of the content.

This solution leverages the scalability of Amazon S3 and the performance benefits of CloudFront to provide an optimal download experience for users globally while minimizing costs.

References

Amazon CloudFront Documentation

Amazon S3 Static Website Hosting

AWS Cost Anomaly Detection is a feature of the AWS Cost Management suite that leverages machine learning to enable continuous monitoring of your AWS costs and usage, allowing you to identify unexpected and abnormal spending1. You can create cost monitors that evaluate specific AWS services, member accounts, cost allocation tags, orcost categories based on your AWS account structure2. You can also configure alert subscriptions that notify you when a cost monitor detects an anomaly that meets your threshold2. In this case, you can create a cost monitor with a monitor type of AWS Service and apply a filter of Amazon EC2 to track the EC2 usage as a metric. You can then configure an alert subscription to notify the architecture team if the usage is 10% more than the average usage for the last 30 days, which is the anomaly detection period used by AWS Cost Anomaly Detection3.

https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/waf-analyze-count-action-rules/

By reducing the number of data nodes in the cluster to 2 and adding UltraWarm nodes to handle the expected capacity, the company can reduce the cost of running the cluster. Additionally, configuring the indexes to transition to UltraWarm when OpenSearch Service ingests the data will ensure that the data is stored in the most cost-effective manner. Finally, transitioning the input data to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 1 month by using an S3 Lifecycle policy will ensure that the data is retained for compliance purposes, while also reducing the ongoing costs.

The analytics team wants to copy only a subset of the data, run the copy as soon as data is ready, and receive notifications when the process completes. AWS DataSync supports the use of manifest files to control exactly which files or objects are transferred. By generating a manifest file on premises that lists only the relevant data and uploading that manifest to Amazon S3, the company can precisely limit what DataSync copies, which reduces data transfer costs and processing overhead.

Option A satisfies the requirement to identify only analytics-relevant data by creating and uploading a manifest file that lists the objects to be transferred. This avoids copying unnecessary data and is cost-effective.

Option D uses Amazon S3 Event Notifications to trigger an AWS Lambda function as soon as the manifest file is uploaded. The Lambda function starts the DataSync task and references the manifest file. This ensures that the copy process begins immediately after data generation, rather than waiting for a fixed schedule, which meets the “as soon as possible” requirement.

Option E provides a fully managed and scalable notification mechanism. AWS DataSync publishes task execution state changes as events. Amazon EventBridge can capture SUCCESS or ERROR states and route those events to Amazon SNS, which can then send email notifications. This approach avoids custom polling logic and minimizes operational overhead.

Option B and C introduce Amazon DynamoDB unnecessarily. DataSync can directly consume a manifest file from Amazon S3, so loading manifest data into DynamoDB and orchestrating copy logic manually adds cost and complexity without benefit.

Option F relies on a custom Lambda function to monitor task state changes, which increases operational overhead compared to the native EventBridge integration with DataSync.

Therefore, using S3-based manifests, event-driven invocation of DataSync, and EventBridge-based notifications is the most cost-effective and operationally efficient solution.

The combination of changes that will meet the requirement with the least operational overhead are:

A. Deploy the API to multiple Regions. Configure Amazon Route 53 with custom domain names that route traffic to each Regional API endpoint.Implement a Route 53 multivalue answer routing policy.

B. Create a new KMS multi-Region customer managed key. Create a new KMS customer managed replica key in each in-scope Region.

C. Replicate the existing Secrets Manager secret to other Regions. For each in-scope Region’s replicated secret, select the appropriate KMS key.

These changes will enable the company to have an active-active configuration for its API across multiple Regions, while minimizing the complexity and cost of managing the secrets and keys.

A. This change will allow the company to use Route 53 to distribute traffic across multiple Regional API endpoints, based on the availability and latency of each endpoint.This will improve the performance and availability of the API for global customers12

B. This change will allow the company to use KMS multi-Region keys, which are KMS keys in different Regions that can be used interchangeably.This will simplify the encryption and decryption of secrets across Regions, as the same key material and key ID can be used in any Region34

C. This change will allow the company to use Secrets Manager replication, which replicates the encrypted secret data and metadata across the specified Regions.This will ensure that the secrets are consistent and accessible in any Region, andthat any update made to the primary secret will be propagated to the replica secrets automatically56