AWS Certified Associate SAA-C03 Reddit Questions

The design already uses one transit gateway (TGW) per Region and inter-Region TGW peering, which addresses the multi-Region AWS-side routing. The remaining requirement is to extend on-premises connectivity over Direct Connect so that on-premises networks can reach VPCs attached to the TGWs across all three Regions. The most operationally efficient and scalable approach is to use AWS Direct Connect Gateway (DXGW) with a transit virtual interface (transit VIF) and then associate the Regional transit gateways to that DXGW.

Option C is purpose-built for this: a transit VIF is specifically used to connect a Direct Connect connection to a Direct Connect gateway, and a DXGW can then be associated to multiple transit gateways (and can be used across Regions), enabling centralized connectivity from on-premises to TGW-connected VPCs. With TGW attachments and TGW route tables, you can propagate and control routes across many VPCs and accounts, which fits the “50 accounts, thousands of VPCs” scale. Inter-Region TGW peering then allows on-premises routes learned via the DXGW/TGW in one Region to reach workloads in the other Regions through the TGW peering relationships, subject to routing configuration.

Option A is too limited and not scalable because it ties Direct Connect to a virtual private gateway (VGW) associated with a single VPC, which does not meet the multi-VPC, multi-account hub-and-spoke requirement. Option B incorrectly suggests associating a DXGW with a VGW “in each VPC” (VGW is per VPC and would not scale well here, and it doesn’t integrate with the TGW hub design you’ve already built). Option D is not the intended pattern: Site-to-Site VPN and public VIF do not replace the DXGW + transit VIF architecture for large-scale TGW-based private routing.

AWS Budgets allows you to set custom cost and usage budgets. When actual or forecasted usage exceeds the threshold, AWS Budgets can automatically send alerts to an Amazon SNS topic. You can use AWS Cost Explorer in parallel for visual tracking of spending. This solution requires no code and has minimal operational overhead.

Option Aintroduces complexity and does not scale well.

Option Bcreates a read replica, offloading read traffic from the primary RDS instance without impacting the critical application.

Option Cis manual and inefficient.

Option Dmight help for caching frequently queried data but is not ideal for ad-hoc reporting.Therefore, Option B is the best choice.

The most cost-effective solution for serving video content with different bitrates is to store multiple versions of each video inAmazon S3. S3 provides scalable and cost-effective storage for largemedia files. Serving the videos from a single Amazon EC2 instance ensures low-latency delivery, and S3 storage helps minimize costs.

Option A (ElastiCache): Caching large video files in memory would be prohibitively expensive and unnecessary.

Option B (Auto Scaling group): Using Auto Scaling groups to serve video is less cost-effective compared to leveraging S3 for static storage.

Option D (Kinesis Video Streams): Kinesis Video Streams is designed for real-time video streaming and is not suitable for storing and serving pre-recorded videos.

AWS References:

Amazon S3 for Media Storage