Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional SAP-C02 topic 1 question 467 discussion

A - Need to set cache behaviour for another origin B - Failover routing record cannot point to 2 ALBs C - Works but does not meet the requirement. By default, when there is no unhealthy distribution, the traffic will always be sent to the primary but not the closest region. D - Sending the traffic to the closest region unless the closest region becomes unhealthy

It is either A or D but both are not perfect. In A Cloudfront will always fetch from the primary region not the closest region. In D latency based routing might not choose the closest region but the one with best latency. For the following reasons I go with A: A is correct: the user will always use the nearest edge location in the closest region to fetch the game assets. Cloudfront will either respond from the cache or load the game assets from the primary origin (or in case the primary origin is not available from the fail over origin). B is incorrect because the game assets would always be fetched from the primary region. C is wrong because this setup is essentially the same as A but much more complicated. D is wrong because latency based routing does not necessarily choose the nearest region but the region with the best latency (geolocation routing policy would be the correct to fulfill the requirement)

Question is a bit vague, can we have certain downtime when the closest region is failed? if that's the case, we can use route53 routing. If we want high availability, we use primary/secondary CF origins. I'd pick A to prevent any issues upon failover. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/high_availability_origin_failover.html

D: Route 53 health check for each ALB + latency alias record ✅ Latency-based routing chooses the closest ALB ✅ Health checks ensure traffic is routed only to healthy endpoints ✅ Automatic failover if one Region becomes unavailable ✅ Fully satisfies both requirements ✅ This is the correct and most efficient solution

A is not possible. You can have only 1 active origin behind CFN

Option B is more appropriate. Below explanation: If the primary goal is to ensure that if one Region's assets become unavailable, traffic should seamlessly switch to another Region without user impact, Option B is more appropriate due to its explicit failover mechanism. However, if minimizing latency is also a critical factor alongside availability, Option D could be a viable solution but may require additional considerations for handling complete failures in one Region.

C is right in my opinion. By using CloudFront distributions with ALBs as origins and setting up a failover routing record in Route 53 (Option C), you can create a setup where traffic is directed to the distribution (and thus the ALB) in the closer region, and automatically switched to the other Region if game assets become unavailable in the first one. This approach meets all of the requirements specified in the question.

A - This option leverages Amazon CloudFront, which is a global content delivery network (CDN) service that securely delivers data, videos, applications, and APIs to customers globally with low latency, high transfer speeds, all within a developer-friendly environment. By setting up an origin group with the ALBs as origins and designating a primary origin, CloudFront automatically routes traffic to the second origin if the primary is unavailable. This setup addresses both the latency (by serving content from the nearest location due to CloudFront's global presence) and failover requirements effectively. B - does not serve geographic location C - works to but A is less complex D - It lacks a CDN which if preffered for this kind of solution

Option D is the best solution because it uses Route 53 latency alias records to ensure that users access the closest AWS Region and provides failover capability with health checks, fulfilling both the proximity and reliability requirements. For option A to be correct, it should be described as CloudFront with Origin Groups. This allows you to set up a primary and a secondary origin. If the primary origin (the ALB in the primary Region) becomes unavailable, CloudFront automatically switches to the secondary origin (the ALB in the secondary Region). This provides the failover functionality, which means if the assets are unavailable in one Region, they can be fetched from the other Region.

D - closest region indicate DNS based on latency. Not a failover scenario.

There are many factors in this question. But this "The company requires game assets to be fetched from the closest Region" points to 'D' latency based routing R53.

Option D incorrect because there is no automatic failover like in cloudFront option A

We are talking about "GAME ASSETS" that by definitions are STATIC CONTENT. So for this reason we should keep A or C (CDN). The correct is A.

Answer: D.

It is A or D. Not A because the request will be always routed to the primary origin, the requirement wants it to be routed to the closest region.

I vote for D reason same as Dgix mentioned in the correction, since question request game asset fetched from closed region

In option D, game will always be fetched from on region except the if the primary region fails. Option A allows for multiple origin, and caching.