Free Amazon SAA-C03 Exam Dumps August 2026

Amazon RDS for MySQL supports read replicas that offload read-intensive workloads such as reporting, leaving the primary instance free for write operations.

''You can use Amazon RDS read replicas to elastically scale out beyond the capacity constraints of a single DB instance for read-heavy database workloads.''

--- Working with Read Replicas

This is the recommended approach for minimizing performance impact on the primary DB instance.

AWS Lake Formation provides centralized data access control, including fine-grained (column-level) permissions for data stored in S3 and accessed through services like Amazon Athena.

Using a Lake Formation blueprint to ingest data from Aurora MySQL into the data lake keeps ingestion and governance integrated. When QuickSight uses Athena as the data source, Athena enforces Lake Formation's column-level permissions automatically. This allows the marketing team to see only the authorized subset of columns without custom access-control logic.

Options A, B, and C rely on manually limiting columns at ingestion time or using IAM or S3 bucket policies, which do not provide true column-level authorization for SQL queries and require significantly more manual work and maintenance.

Using S3 event notifications to trigger AWS Lambda for file processing is a cost-effective and serverless solution. Lambda scales automatically with upload volume, and processing each file takes less than 5 seconds, fitting within Lambda's execution time.

Option A:AWS AppSync is designed for GraphQL APIs and is not suitable for file processing.

Option C:Kinesis is overkill and more expensive for this use case.

Option D:Running an EC2 instance incurs ongoing costs and is less flexible compared to Lambda.

AWS Documentation Reference:

Amazon S3 Event Notifications

AWS Lambda Overview

For predictable workloads requiring a relational database, Amazon RDS for MySQL offers a managed, cost-effective solution. Storing product images in Amazon S3 is highly durable and cost-efficient, especially for static assets like images. This combination leverages managed services to reduce operational overhead and costs.

Amazon Route 53 supports failover routing policies, which use health checks to route DNS queries to a secondary Region only if the primary endpoint fails. This design ensures only one Region is active for traffic at any given time. This is the recommended architecture for active-passive, multi-Region DR strategies.

AWS Documentation Extract:

''Failover routing lets you route traffic to a primary resource, such as a web server in one Region, and a secondary resource in another Region. If the primary fails, Route 53 can route traffic to the secondary resource automatically.''

(Source: Amazon Route 53 documentation, Routing Policy Types)

A, D: These options do not configure DNS failover for external users.

C: Geolocation routing is for regional distribution, not DR failover.

Key Requirements:

Host the frontend on AWS as a static website.

Protect the application from common web vulnerabilities.

Minimal operational overhead.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:

Hosting the frontend on EC2 with an ALB introduces unnecessary complexity for serving static content.

AWS WAF rules can protect the ALB, but managing EC2 instances adds operational overhead.

Incorrect Approach: High operational complexity for a simple static website.

Option B:

Amazon CloudFront: Acts as a global CDN, reducing latency and protecting against DDoS attacks.

Multiple Origins: Allows static content to be served from S3 while routing API traffic to the on-premises backend.

AWS WAF: Integrates with CloudFront to provide web application protection.

Correct Approach: Offers low operational overhead with optimal security and performance.

Option C:

Using NLB and Network Firewall is unnecessary for a static website. This approach increases cost and complexity without addressing the frontend requirements effectively.

Incorrect Approach: Over-engineered solution.

Option D:

Hosting the frontend on S3 and using API Gateway is a viable option, but managing AWS WAF rules separately for both the S3 bucket and the REST API increases complexity.

Incorrect Approach: Less efficient than using CloudFront with multiple origins.

AWS Solution Architect Reference:

Amazon CloudFront Overview

AWS WAF with CloudFront

Key Requirements:

High availability and automatic recovery.

Separate transactional and analytical queries with minimal performance impact.

Allow up to a 4-hour lag for analytical queries.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:

Multi-AZ deployments provide high availability but do not include read replicas for separating transactional and analytical queries.

Analytical queries on the secondary DB instance would impact the transactional workload.

Incorrect Approach: Does not meet the requirement of query separation.

Option B:

Multi-AZ DB clusters provide high availability and include a reader endpoint. However, these are better suited for Aurora and not RDS for MySQL.

Incorrect Approach: Not applicable to standard RDS for MySQL.

Option C:

Multiple read replicas allow separation of transactional and analytical workloads.

Queries can be pointed to a replica in a different AZ, ensuring no impact on transactional queries.

Correct Approach: Meets all requirements with high availability and query separation.

Option D:

Creating nightly snapshots and read-only databases adds significant operational overhead and does not support the 4-hour lag requirement.

Incorrect Approach: Not practical for dynamic query separation.

AWS Solution Architect Reference:

Amazon RDS Read Replicas

Multi-AZ Deployments

Detailed

A . IAM identity provider: Does not support centralized management across multiple accounts.

B . AWS Managed AD: Unnecessary if an on-premises Active Directory already exists.

C . IAM Identity Center + Existing AD: Best approach to integrate existing Active Directory for SSO, with MFA and centralized permissions.

D . Lambda for synchronization: Adds complexity and does not leverage IAM Identity Center capabilities.

Detailed

A . EventBridge Rule: Detects modifications to CloudFront distributions in real time and triggers the Lambda function for further action.

B . ALB + Config: Focuses on ALB security violations, not relevant for CloudFront logging changes.

C . Lambda + SNS: Provides real-time notifications about changes in logging configuration.

D . GuardDuty: Focuses on threat detection, not logging configuration changes.

E . API Gateway + WAF: Unrelated to CloudFront logging changes.

A VPC peering connection is a networking connection between two VPCs that enables users to route traffic between them using private IP addresses. Instances in either VPC can communicate with each other as if they are within the same network.A VPC peering connection can be created between VPCs in the same or different AWS accounts and Regions1. By configuring a VPC peering connection between VPC A and VPC B, the solution can provide the required access most securely.

A) Create a DB instance security group that allows all traffic from the public IP address of the application server in VPC A.This solution will not provide the required access most securely, as it involves exposing the DB instance to the public internet and relying on a single IP address for access control2.

C) Make the DB instance publicly accessible. Assign a public IP address to the DB instance.This solution will not provide the required access most securely, as it involves exposing the DB instance to the public internet and allowing any source to connect to it2.

D) Launch an EC2 instance with an Elastic IP address into VPC B. Proxy all requests through the new EC2 instance.This solution will not provide the required access most securely, as it involves creating an additional resource and configuring a proxy server that may introduce latency and complexity3.

Reference URL: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/peering/what-is-vpc-peering.html