Exam AWS Certified SysOps Administrator - Associate topic 1 question 330 discussion

To me both B&D minimize potential data loss. However, the question is not specifying availability (Multi-AZ is B) Instead, the question is emphasizing quick recovery from backup (not active/active recovery) Therefore, I think only option D meets both criteria for minimizing potential data loss and quick recovery. - 1 Hour RPO (only D specifies hourly snapshots & hourly RPO) - Snapshots (D) have faster RTO than native backup restore from S3 (B) In the real world, I've used both backups (regularly/scheduled) and snapshots (prior to scheduled changes, etc.)

D is incorrect why: While using Amazon DLM for EBS snapshots provides backups, it's not as comprehensive for database use as RDS. In the event of a failure, recovery time would be longer as you would have to manually restore the EBS volume from a snapshot and then attach it to a new EC2 instance.

This is a strong solution because Amazon RDS for MySQL with a Multi-AZ deployment provides high availability by automatically replicating database instances across multiple Availability Zones (AZs). This means if one AZ has issues, RDS will automatically fail over to the standby in another AZ with minimal disruption and without manual intervention. Additionally, RDS handles backups automatically and stores them for a user-defined period, which can be restored as needed. Updating the application's connection string to the new RDS instance completes the migration process from EC2 to RDS. While snapshotting the EBS volume frequently does help to minimize data loss, this option does NOT provide a QUICK failover solution in case of a database failure. Recovery time would include the process of provisioning a new EC2 instance and attaching the restored EBS volume, which can be time-consuming and also may result in data loss since the last snapshot.

B by chatGpto4 Conclusion: Option B (RDS Multi-AZ): Using Amazon RDS for MySQL Multi-AZ DB instance offers the most operationally efficient and robust solution to minimize data loss and downtime. It ensures high availability, automated backups, and failover capabilities, making it ideal for production environments where database reliability a

Sold by Gomer's answer

RDS Multi-AZ all the way!

MySQL recovery is very dependant on Transaction Logs. I don't think an EBS snapshot is a good backup\recovery solution for this scenario. Point 2, is that Multi-AZ and HA is one way to ensure instant recovery if primary instance fails with is the MOST Operationally Efficient. B it is.

Def B as to minimize the Data loss, In case of D which is 1 hour Snapshot there would be a data lost during this 1 hour interval, while in B Multi-AZ there won't be any data loss

My first questions was: "why has this not already been migrated over to RDS Multi-AZ" I think it most operationally efficient to use a service that could be renamed "MySQL designed for failover events" data loss would be minutes. Data loss on EBS snapshots would be up to 60 mins. Being in this situation I would be quizzing my project manager on why in gods name are we storing this on EC2/EBS and aren't these backups slight overkill.

B satisfy the "minimize potential data loss and the time that is required to recover in the event of a database failure and the MOST operationally efficient solution - doing one time and forget it.

C. It says DB failure and not AZ failure. Single AZ works. MySQL native backups that are stored in Amazon S3 ensures data durability and enables efficient restoration

B "MOST operationally efficient solution" is to use Rds with multi az

nswer is D

Answer is D