The AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional (SAP-C02)

D is correct because thehealth check grace perioddefines how long Auto Scaling waits after launching an instance before checking its health status. With the larger content added to the S3 bucket, the instance initialization (via user data) is taking longer. Increasing the grace period allows the instance time to complete startup tasks before it’s marked as unhealthy.

Option A would not necessarily reduce startup time — the issue is likely network latency or the size of the content.

Option B only affects the timeout for health check responses, not the delay before they begin.

Option C is not applicable unless the health check path itself is invalid (which isn ' t mentioned).

The best solution is to deploy an Amazon RDS instance with a cross-Region read replica in a secondary Region. This will provide the company with a database solution that can fail over to the secondary Region in case of a disaster. The read replica will have minimal replication lag and can be promoted to become the primary in less than 10 minutes, meeting the RTO requirement. The RPO requirement of less than 5 minutes can also be met by using synchronous replication within the primary Region and asynchronous replication across Regions. This solution will also have the lowest cost compared to the other options, as it does not involve additional services or resources. References: [Amazon RDS User Guide], [Amazon Aurora User Guide]

The company wants logging that helps troubleshoot email delivery issues and also wants to search by recipient, subject, and time sent. Amazon SES provides event publishing for email sending and delivery events through configuration sets. With a configuration set, SES can publish sending events such as send, delivery, bounce, complaint, reject, and rendering failure to destinations such as Amazon CloudWatch, Amazon SNS, or Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose. For building a searchable log store, delivering these events into Amazon S3 through Kinesis Data Firehose is an effective approach because S3 provides durable storage and integrates well with query services.

Option A creates an SES configuration set with a Kinesis Data Firehose destination that delivers logs to an S3 bucket. This captures detailed SES event data that is directly useful for troubleshooting delivery issues and retaining historical records for analysis.

Once logs are stored in Amazon S3, Amazon Athena can query the data using SQL. Athena is designed to query data in S3 and is well suited for ad hoc searches. This meets the requirement to search based on recipient, subject, and time sent, assuming the event schema includes these fields (or they are included in the published event payload). Therefore, option C completes the solution by enabling searches over the stored log dataset.

Option B (CloudTrail) records API activity, such as calls made to SES APIs, but it is not designed to capture per-message delivery outcomes (deliveries, bounces, complaints) in a way that supports troubleshooting delivery behavior and detailed email event searching. CloudTrail is useful for auditing who called SES APIs, not for tracking message-level delivery events and outcomes.

Option D (CloudWatch log group) is another valid SES event publishing destination, but if the requirement is to perform flexible searches by multiple dimensions over a potentially large historical dataset, storing the logs in S3 and querying with Athena is a more direct and scalable pattern. Also, the provided option E is incorrect because Athena queries data in S3, not in CloudWatch Logs. CloudWatch Logs has its own query mechanism, but Athena is not used to query CloudWatch Logs directly in the way described.

Option E is incorrect because Amazon Athena does not query CloudWatch Logs as a log store. The typical searchable pattern for Athena is S3-backed datasets.

Therefore, the best combination to satisfy logging and searchable analysis requirements is to publish SES events to S3 via Kinesis Data Firehose (option A) and query those logs with Athena (option C).

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/new-enhancements-for-moving-data-between-amazon-fsx-for-lustre-and-amazon-s3/

A: Use dynamic IAM policies with {aws:PrincipalTag/userName} to enforceprefix-level access control— i.e., bucket/userA/*, bucket/userB/*.

C: Enable CloudTraildata eventsto capture object-level access andquery them withAthena. This is the AWS-recommended way to audit per-user object access.

Incorrect:

B doesn ' t provide user isolation.

D only capturesmanagement events, not object-level data access.

E is legacy, inefficient, and not structured for per-user auditing.

The best solution for this problem is to update the visibility timeout for the SQS queue to 3 hours. This is because when the visibility timeout is set to 1 hour, it means that if the EC2 instance doesn ' t process the message within an hour, it will be moved to the dead-letter queue. By increasing the visibility timeout to 3 hours, this should give the EC2 instance enough time to process the message before it gets moved to the dead-letter queue. Additionally, configuring scale-in protection for the EC2 instances during processing will help to ensure that the instances are not terminated while the messages are being processed.

Migrating to an Amazon EKS cluster with managed node groups minimizes the effort required because:

EKS is fully managed, offering native Kubernetes support, making it easy to deploy the existing Kubernetes manifests without major changes.

Copying containers to Amazon ECR allows for fully managed, scalable container image storage in AWS, eliminating reliance on the on-premises container repository.

Deploying the existing manifests directly to EKS reuses all the existing configuration, such as service definitions, deployments, and scaling policies, simplifying migration.

Using Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL provides a fully managed, highly available database service that is compatible with PostgreSQL, reducing operational overhead compared to managing a self-hosted database.This approach leverages the power of AWS managed services while preserving the existing microservices and deployment practices, ensuring minimal disruption and fastest migration path.

D is correct because AWS Private CA supports resource sharing through AWS RAM, which allows you to share the CA across accounts in your AWS Organization securely. It ensures the CA private key remains secure and is never exported.

A is invalid because you cannot export a CA’s private key, and importing/exporting CAs this way is unsupported.

B is incorrect — IAM policies alone are not sufficient to share Private CAs across accounts.

C is not applicable because resource-based delegation policies do not apply to AWS Private CA.

Option B is correct because AWS Organizations allows a company to create a new organization from a chosen payer account and define an organizational unit hierarchy. This way, the finance department can have a centralized method for payment but also maintain visibility into each group’s spending to allocate costs. The company can also invite the existing accounts to join the organization and create new accounts using Organizations, which simplifies the account management process.

Option D is correct because enabling all features of AWS Organizations and establishing appropriate service control policies (SCPs) that filter IAM permissions for sub-accounts allows the security team to have a centralized mechanism to control IAM usage in all the company’s accounts. SCPs are policies that specify the maximum permissions for an organization or organizational unit (OU), and they can be used to restrict access to certain services or actions across all accounts in an organization.

Option A is incorrect because using a collection of parameterized AWS CloudFormation templates defining common IAM permissions that are launched into each account requires more effort than using SCPs. Moreover, it does not provide a centralized mechanism to control IAM usage, as each account would have to launch the appropriate stacks to enforce the least privilege model.

Option C is incorrect because requiring each business unit to use its own AWS accounts does not provide a centralized method for payment or a centralized mechanism to control IAM usage. Tagging each AWS account appropriately and enabling Cost Explorer to administer chargebacks may help with cost allocation, but it is not as efficient as using AWS Organizations.

Option E is incorrect because consolidating all of the company’s AWS accounts into a single AWS account does not provide visibility into each group’s spending or a way to control IAM usage for different business units. Using tags for billing purposes and the IAM’s Access Advisor feature to enforce the least privilege model may help with cost optimization and security, but it is not as scalable or flexible as using AWS Organizations.

AWS Organizations

Service Control Policies

AWS CloudFormation

Cost Explorer

IAM Access Advisor