New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Amazon SAP-C02 Exam - Topic 5 Question 21 Discussion

Actual exam question for Amazon's SAP-C02 exam
Question #: 21
Topic #: 5
[All SAP-C02 Questions]

A company wants to design a disaster recovery (DR) solution for an application that runs in the company's data center. The application writes to an SMB file share and creates a copy on a second file share. Both file shares are in the data center. The application uses two types of files: metadata files and image files.

The company wants to store the copy on AWS. The company needs the ability to use SMB to access the data from either the data center or AWS if a disaster occurs. The copy of the data is rarely accessed but must be available within 5 minutes.

Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

The correct solution is to use an Amazon S3 File Gateway to store the copy of the SMB file share on AWS. An S3 File Gateway enables on-premises applications to store and access objects in Amazon S3 using the SMB protocol. The S3 File Gateway can also be accessed from AWS using the SMB protocol, which provides the ability to use the data from either the data center or AWS if a disaster occurs. The S3 File Gateway supports tiering of data to different S3 storage classes based on the file type. This allows the company to optimize the storage costs by using S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) for the metadata files, which are rarely accessed but must be available within 5 minutes, and S3 Glacier Deep Archive for the image files, which are the lowest-cost storage class and suitable for long-term retention of data that is rarely accessed. This solution is the most cost-effective because it does not require any additional hardware, software, or replication services.

The other solutions are incorrect because they either use more expensive or unnecessary services or components, or they do not meet the requirements. For example:

Solution A is incorrect because it uses AWS Outposts with Amazon S3 storage, which is a very expensive and complex solution for the scenario in the question. AWS Outposts is a service that extends AWS infrastructure, services, APIs, and tools to virtually any data center, co-location space, or on-premises facility. It is designed for customers who need low latency and local data processing. Amazon S3 storage on Outposts provides a subset of S3 features and APIs to store and retrieve data on Outposts. However, this solution does not provide SMB access to the data on Outposts, which requires a Windows EC2 instance on Outposts as a file server. This adds more cost and complexity to the solution, and it does not provide the ability to access the data from AWS if a disaster occurs.

Solution B is incorrect because it uses Amazon FSx File Gateway and Amazon FSx for Windows File Server Multi-AZ file system that uses SSD storage, which are both more expensive and unnecessary services for the scenario in the question. Amazon FSx File Gateway is a service that enables on-premises applications to store and access data in Amazon FSx for Windows File Server using the SMB protocol. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server is a fully managed service that provides native Windows file shares with the compatibility, features, and performance that Windows-based applications rely on. However, this solution does not meet the requirements because it does not provide the ability to use different storage classes for the metadata files and image files, and it does not provide the ability to access the data from AWS if a disaster occurs. Moreover, using a Multi-AZ file system that uses SSD storage is overprovisioned and costly for the scenario in the question, which involves rarely accessed data that must be available within 5 minutes.

Solution D is incorrect because it uses an S3 File Gateway that uses S3 Standard-IA for both the metadata files and image files, which is not the most cost-effective solution for the scenario in the question. S3 Standard-IA is a storage class that offers high durability, availability, and performance for infrequently accessed data. However, it is more expensive than S3 Glacier Deep Archive, which is the lowest-cost storage class and suitable for long-term retention of data that is rarely accessed. Therefore, using S3 Standard-IA for the image files, which are likely to be larger and more numerous than the metadata files, is not optimal for the storage costs.


What is S3 File Gateway?

Using Amazon S3 storage classes with S3 File Gateway

Accessing your file shares from AWS

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Felix
3 months ago
D is too basic; it won't handle the infrequent access needs well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Scarlet
3 months ago
Wait, can S3 Glacier really meet the 5-minute access requirement?
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
3 months ago
C seems like a good balance between cost and access speed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aja
4 months ago
I think A is overkill for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Haydee
4 months ago
Option B sounds solid for multi-AZ support.
upvoted 0 times
...
Clorinda
4 months ago
I vaguely remember that Outposts might be more expensive than using S3, but I can't quite remember the details about how they compare in terms of SMB access.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bong
4 months ago
I feel like the S3 File Gateway options could be good, especially with S3 Standard-IA for metadata, but I'm unsure if Glacier Deep Archive is too slow for our 5-minute requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mauricio
4 months ago
I think we practiced a similar question about using Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, but I can't recall if it was the best choice for infrequent access scenarios.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sage
5 months ago
I remember discussing how important it is to have quick access to data in a disaster recovery plan, but I'm not sure which option is the most cost-effective.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elden
5 months ago
I'm pretty confident I know the right solution here. The AWS Outposts option seems like overkill, and the S3 File Gateway with a mix of S3 storage classes looks like the most cost-effective approach that still meets the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josphine
5 months ago
Okay, let me think this through step-by-step. The company wants to store a copy of the data on AWS, and they need SMB access to that data. They also want it to be available within 5 minutes. I'm leaning towards one of the AWS File Gateway options, but I'll need to compare the details of each.
upvoted 0 times
...
Linette
5 months ago
This question seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the requirements correctly before choosing an answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lilli
5 months ago
Hmm, the key details I'm focusing on are the need for SMB access, the requirement for 5-minute data availability, and the need to store the data cost-effectively on AWS. I think I have a good handle on the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Argelia
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. Is it talking about the resources that the standardized work instructions apply to, or the resources that are being standardized? I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosenda
5 months ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. Does a domain really need to include the default authentication provider? That's an interesting option to think about. I'll have to weigh that against the other choices.
upvoted 0 times
...
Georgene
5 months ago
I remember there was a practice question about compliance requirements of host countries. That could also be relevant for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brock
2 years ago
Haha, can you imagine if we just went with option D and used S3 Standard-IA for everything? Talk about a one-size-fits-all approach. Though I guess it would be the most simple to set up. But where's the fun in that, right?
upvoted 0 times
Avery
2 years ago
Yeah, we should weigh the pros and cons of each option before making a decision
upvoted 0 times
...
Ciara
2 years ago
That could be a good solution for our needs, it's worth considering
upvoted 0 times
...
William
2 years ago
What about option A with AWS Outposts and Amazon S3 storage?
upvoted 0 times
...
Horace
2 years ago
I agree, we don't want to regret our choice later on
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamekia
2 years ago
True, but I feel like we should consider all our options before deciding
upvoted 0 times
...
Anthony
2 years ago
Option D sounds like the easiest choice, just keep it simple
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Floyd
2 years ago
Yeah, I'm with you on option C. It seems to hit all the requirements - cost-effectiveness, quick access, and using SMB to access the data. Plus, I like the idea of tiering the storage based on the file types. Keeps the costs down without sacrificing availability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antione
2 years ago
I don't know, option B seems a bit overkill for this use case. I mean, we're talking about rarely accessed data, so the performance of SSD storage might be a bit excessive. What do you guys think about option C? Using S3 Standard-IA for the metadata and Glacier Deep Archive for the image files could be a more cost-effective solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronnie
2 years ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. We need a solution that's cost-effective and can provide quick access to the data in case of a disaster. I'm leaning towards option B, the Amazon FSx File Gateway. It seems like the most straightforward solution, and the Multi-AZ file system with SSD storage should give us the performance we need.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel