SAA-C03 Question 426
Select 1A company is designing a new application that requires high-performance storage for a database, shared access to files from multiple instances, and a scalable solution for storing backups and logs. Which combination of storage types should the company use to meet these requirements?
- A
Amazon S3 for backups and logs, Amazon EBS for the database, Amazon EFS for shared file access
- B
Amazon EFS for backups and logs, Amazon EBS for the database, Amazon FSx for shared file access
- C
Amazon S3 for backups and logs, Amazon FSx for the database, Amazon EFS for shared file access
- D
Amazon S3 for backups and logs, Amazon EBS for the database, Amazon FSx for shared file access
- E
Amazon Glacier for backups and logs, Amazon EBS for the database, Amazon EFS for shared file access
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: A
Explanation
The correct combination of storage types addresses the specific requirements of the application. Amazon S3 offers scalable object storage for backups and logs. Amazon EBS provides high-performance block storage for the database. Amazon EFS is ideal for shared file access, as it is a managed file system accessible from multiple instances. This combination ensures the application meets its performance, scalability, and accessibility needs.
- A. Correct.
This is the correct answer. Amazon S3 is ideal for storing backups and logs due to its scalability and durability. Amazon EBS provides block storage with low latency, suitable for the database. Amazon EFS is a managed file system that allows shared access from multiple instances, meeting the shared file access requirement.
- B. Incorrect.
Incorrect. While Amazon EFS provides shared access, it is not well-suited for storing backups and logs due to its cost and performance characteristics. Amazon FSx is not the optimal choice for this scenario as it is designed for specific file system workloads.
- C. Incorrect.
Incorrect. Amazon FSx is not an ideal choice for a database workload as it is optimized for specific file system use cases. The combination of Amazon S3, EFS, and FSx does not fully meet the requirements.
- D. Incorrect.
Incorrect. While Amazon S3 and Amazon EBS are correct for backups/logs and the database respectively, Amazon FSx is not suitable for shared file access in this scenario. Amazon EFS is a better fit for shared access.
- E. Incorrect.
Incorrect. Amazon Glacier is designed for long-term archival storage and has high retrieval latency, making it unsuitable for backups and logs that require more frequent access. Amazon EBS and EFS are appropriately matched but do not compensate for the Glacier mismatch.