Q94 — AWS SAA-C03 Ch.15

Question 94 of 100 | ← Chapter 15

Q1194. An ecommerce company is redesigning a web application to run on the AWS Cloud. The application needs to store static website content and must use a Microsoft SQL Server database to store customer data.The company needs to deploy the application in a resilient way across multiple Availability Zones.Which solution will meet these requirements?

Correct Answer: B. Use an Amazon S3 bucket to store static content. Create an Amazon RDS for SQL Server Multi-AZ deployment for the database.

Explanation

The correct solution to meet the requirements of storing static website content and using a Microsoft SQL Server database in a resilient way across multiple Availability Zones (AZs) is:B. Use an Amazon S3 bucket to store static content. Create an Amazon RDS for SQL Server Multi-AZ deployment for the database.Explanation:Static Content Storage:Amazon S3 is the ideal choice for storing static website content because it is highly durable, scalable, and available across multiple AZs by default. It is designed for high availability and does not require additional configuration to be resilient.Database Resilience:Amazon RDS for SQL Server Multi-AZ deployment provides high availability by automatically creating and maintaining a synchronous standby replica in a different AZ. In case of a failure in the primary AZ, RDS automatically fails over to the standby replica, minimizing downtime. This meets the requirement for resilience across multiple AZs.Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:Option A: While using Amazon S3 for static content is correct, Amazon RDS Custom for SQL Server is not the best choice for high availability. RDS Custom is designed for more complex customization needs but does not inherently provide the same level of automatic high availability as RDS Multi-AZ. Option C: Using an Amazon EBS Multi-Attach volume for static content is not a good solution. EBS volumes are designed for block storage and are not suitable for serving static content. Additionally, EBS volumes are tied to a single EC2 instance and do not provide the same level of availability and scalability as S3.Option D: Using an Amazon EBS Multi-Attach volume for static content is again not suitable. While deploying SQL Server on two Amazon EC2 instances in separate AZs can provide high availability, it requires significant manual configuration and management, including setting up replication, failover mechanisms, and ensuring data consistency. This is more complex and less reliable than using RDS Multi- AZ.Conclusion:Option B is the best solution because it leverages Amazon S3 for static content (which is inherently highly available) and Amazon RDS for SQL Server Multi-AZ for the database (which provides automatic high availability across multiple AZs). This meets all the requirements with minimal configuration and management overhead.