Free Practice Questions for Amazon Web Services DVA-C02 Exam

DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX) provides a managed caching layer specifically optimized for DynamoDB, reducing latency for repeated read requests.

Why Option A is Correct:

Purpose-Built: DAX is designed for DynamoDB, enabling sub-millisecond response times for frequently accessed items.

Operational Efficiency: No need for additional application-level caching logic.

Why Not Other Options:

Option B: Auto Scaling increases capacity but does not address repetitive reads.

Option C: API Gateway caching helps reduce request processing time but does not optimize DynamoDB reads.

Option D: ElastiCache is a general-purpose cache, adding unnecessary complexity for DynamoDB use cases.

DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX)

This solution will meet the requirements by using Amazon RDS Proxy, which is a fully managed, highly available database proxy for Amazon RDS that makes applications more scalable, more resilient to database failures, and more secure. The developer can create a proxy in Amazon RDS Proxy, which sits between the application and the DB instance and handles connection management, pooling, and routing. The developer can query the proxy instead of the DB instance, which reduces the number of open connections to the DB instance and avoids errors for too many connections. Option A is not optimal because it will create a read replica for the DB instance, which may not solve the problem of too many connections as read replicas also have connection limits and may incur additional costs. Option B is not optimal because it will migrate the data to an Amazon DynamoDB database, which may introduce additional complexity and overhead for migrating and accessing data from a different database service. Option C is not optimal because it will configure the Amazon Aurora MySQL DB instance for Multi-AZ deployment, which may improve availability and durability of the DB instance but not reduce the number of connections.

Centralized logging for microservices means collecting application logs from many services into a single managed logging backend where logs can be searched, retained, and monitored. For containerized microservices on AWS, the standard approach is to send each service’s stdout/stderr logs to Amazon CloudWatch Logs.

Option A is the appropriate solution: create separate CloudWatch Logs streams (and typically log groups) per microservice. This scales naturally as microservices increase, supports retention policies, metric filters, alarms, and integrations with tools like CloudWatch Logs Insights for querying across services. Container orchestrators (ECS/EKS) can be configured to use the CloudWatch Logs log driver so logs are shipped automatically without custom log shipping agents.

Option B (CloudTrail) logs AWS API activity, not application logs.

Option C (VPC Flow Logs) captures network flow metadata, not application-level logs.

Option D (Cloud Map) is service discovery, not logging.

Therefore, using CloudWatch Logs streams per microservice is the correct central logging approach.

The key security requirement is to limit both scope and duration of credentials used by an external application (running outside AWS). The most secure AWS-native way to do this is to use temporary security credentials issued by AWS Security Token Service (STS), rather than long-term IAM user access keys. Temporary credentials have a short, configurable lifetime and are tied to permissions defined by an IAM role and (optionally) session policies, which enforces least privilege.

With STS AssumeRole , the application requests temporary credentials for a specific IAM role . The role’s permission policy strictly defines what AWS actions and resources the session can access. The resulting credentials automatically expire, reducing the blast radius if the credentials are exposed. This approach also supports best practices such as rotating session credentials frequently and using external IDs and condition keys (where applicable) to reduce confused-deputy risks.

Options A and B rely on long-term IAM user credentials . Even if stored in environment variables or AWS Secrets Manager, these are still persistent credentials that do not inherently meet the “limit duration” requirement and are higher risk if leaked. Secrets Manager improves storage and rotation workflows, but it does not change the fact that IAM user access keys are long-lived by default.

Option C (GetFederationToken) is not the best fit here. Federation tokens are typically used to obtain temporary credentials for a federated user session and are commonly associated with IAM users (or scenarios like providing temporary access to third parties) rather than the standard, role-based pattern for an application assuming permissions. The most direct and widely recommended method for applications needing scoped, time-bound AWS access is AssumeRole .

Therefore, D is the most secure solution: create an IAM role with least-privilege permissions and have the application call STS AssumeRole to obtain short-lived credentials for AWS API calls.

Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed NoSQL database service that can store and retrieve any amount of data with high availability and performance. DynamoDB can handle concurrent requests from multiple IoT devices without throttling or data loss. To prevent duplicate requests from causing inconsistencies or data loss, the Lambda function can use DynamoDB conditional writes to check if the unique identifier for each request already exists in the table before processing the request. If the identifier exists, the function can skip or abort the request; otherwise, it can process the request and store the identifier in the table. Reference: Using conditional writes

Amazon API Gateway has a hard integration timeout that determines how long it waits for a backend response. If the backend (Lambda) does not respond within this time, API Gateway returns an HTTP 504 error to the client.

In this scenario, the Lambda function timeout is longer (20 seconds) than the API Gateway integration timeout (15 seconds). AWS documentation states that API Gateway will terminate the request once its timeout is exceeded, even if Lambda continues executing successfully. This explains why there are no Lambda errors despite 504 responses.

Increasing the Lambda timeout (Option B) does not help because API Gateway times out first. Reserved concurrency (Option A) and throttling limits (Option D) are unrelated to request duration.

The correct solution is to increase the API Gateway integration timeout so that it exceeds the maximum expected Lambda execution time. This ensures API Gateway waits long enough for the Lambda response.

Therefore, increasing the API Gateway timeout prevents HTTP 504 errors.

The most secure and AWS-recommended way for a Lambda function to access other AWS services is to use an IAM execution role. Lambda assumes this role at runtime and receives temporary credentials that are automatically rotated by AWS. The developer attaches the necessary permissions (the existing IAM policy) to that role, and then configures the Lambda function to use the role.

Option B follows least privilege and avoids long-term credentials. It also integrates with AWS security tooling: IAM Access Analyzer, CloudTrail, and policy boundaries can all be applied cleanly. Because the policy already exists, this requires minimal extra work: create/choose the execution role, attach the policy, and assign the role to the function.

Option A is not correct because IAM policies are attached to IAM identities (users, groups, roles) — not directly to Lambda functions as standalone entities. Lambda permissions are granted through the function’s execution role.

Option C is insecure because it uses long-term IAM user access keys embedded in environment variables. Even if encrypted, this expands the blast radius, complicates rotation, and contradicts AWS best practices for avoiding static credentials inside code/runtime.

Option D is extremely insecure and noncompliant. Root user access keys should not be used for applications and should generally not exist.

Therefore, create and attach the existing policy to a Lambda execution IAM role and assign that role to the function.

The key constraint is no changes to the Lambda code, while still fanning out notifications so that each department receives only its relevant file locations in its existing SQS queue. The cleanest “plumbing-only” pattern is S3 → SNS → SQS with SNS subscription filter policies.

Amazon S3 event notifications can publish events to an SNS topic. SNS then delivers messages to multiple subscribers, including SQS queues. By subscribing each department’s SQS queue to the SNS topic, the system can fan out the event to all queues. To ensure each department receives only its relevant events, the developer can configure SNS subscription filter policies (for example, based on object key prefixes like /deptA/, /deptB/). This routes messages without requiring any change to the Lambda function.

Option D is not ideal because S3 event notifications do not provide the same flexible filtering/routing to multiple SQS queues as SNS filter policies do (and configuring many direct notifications becomes harder to manage).

Options B and C require Lambda code changes, which violates the requirement.

Therefore, use S3 event notifications to SNS, subscribe each department SQS queue, and use filter policies for routing.

HTTP 429 errors indicate throttling (“Too Many Requests”). In this architecture, throttling can occur at multiple layers (API Gateway rate limits, downstream AWS service API throttles, or dependency throttling). Regardless of which service is throttling, the correct resilience pattern is to implement retries with exponential backoff and jitter for retryable failures. AWS SDKs and AWS best practices recommend backoff to reduce contention and allow the system to recover, while ensuring requests eventually succeed.

Option C directly addresses the problem and the requirement “ensure that all of the application ingests all files.” With a retry + backoff pattern, transient throttling is handled gracefully: failed operations are retried after increasing delays, avoiding immediate retry storms that worsen throttling. This increases successful completion rate without requiring major architectural changes.

Option A (Transfer Acceleration) can improve upload latency from geographically distributed clients, but it does not resolve request throttling (429) caused by API limits.

Option B (multipart upload) helps with large object uploads and can improve throughput/reliability for big files, but it does not inherently prevent 429 throttling at API Gateway or other throttled calls.

Option D (Intelligent-Tiering) affects storage cost optimization, not ingestion throttling.

CodeBuild batch builds are designed for running multiple related builds together and can model dependencies between build tasks. This fits the requirement for simultaneous, interdependent builds across web, mobile, and API components. Using a combination of reserved capacity fleets and On-Demand capacity helps optimize cost and availability. Running all builds as separate projects with only On-Demand capacity misses the reserved fleet cost optimization requirement. Assigning separate projects manually creates more operational overhead and does not naturally coordinate dependencies. Running everything sequentially contradicts the requirement to run builds simultaneously and slows delivery. AWS CodeBuild documentation includes batch build concepts and reserved capacity fleet support, including fleet settings for batch builds. ( AWS Documentation )

===============

Amazon API Gateway supports canary deployments , which are designed specifically for controlled production rollouts. Canary deployments allow a developer to direct a configurable percentage of traffic to a new deployment while the remainder continues to use the existing deployment.

AWS documentation states that canary releases help minimize customer impact by exposing only a subset of users to potential issues. Because the routing is request-based , individual users are less likely to encounter inconsistent behavior across multiple requests.

Route 53 weighted routing (Option B) operates at the DNS level and can result in users being routed unpredictably due to DNS caching. An Application Load Balancer (Option C) is not supported as a direct frontend for API Gateway stages and adds unnecessary complexity. Option A lacks traffic control guarantees.

Therefore, configuring a canary deployment on the production stage is the AWS-recommended and lowest-risk approach.

The EC2 instances are in private subnets with no public internet access, yet the CloudWatch agent must publish metrics to Amazon CloudWatch. To send metrics, the instances need: (1) network connectivity to CloudWatch APIs, and (2) IAM permissions that allow the agent to publish metrics and logs.

The most secure approach is to avoid opening outbound internet access via a NAT gateway (which increases the network attack surface) and instead use AWS PrivateLink through a VPC interface endpoint for CloudWatch. An interface endpoint provides private connectivity from the VPC to CloudWatch without traversing the public internet.

On the permissions side, AWS provides the managed IAM policy CloudWatchAgentServerPolicy, which is intended for the CloudWatch agent running on servers to publish metrics/logs. Attaching this policy to the EC2 instance profile role provides the needed permissions while keeping scope appropriate (unlike an admin policy).

Why the other options are not best:

A uses CloudWatchAgentAdminPolicy (broader permissions than needed) and a NAT gateway (public internet path). That is not “most secure.”

B is irrelevant here because the agent is already installed and running; the issue is publishing connectivity/permissions.

D grants read-only access, which cannot publish metrics, so it cannot fix the issue.

Therefore, attach CloudWatchAgentServerPolicy to the instance role and create a VPC interface endpoint for CloudWatch.

Amazon S3 Lifecycle rules are specifically designed to manage object versions over time. When versioning is enabled, lifecycle rules can be configured to expire noncurrent versions , retaining only a defined number of recent versions.

AWS documentation states that lifecycle rules can be used to “retain a specific number of newer noncurrent versions.” By configuring a lifecycle rule to keep one noncurrent version , Amazon S3 automatically deletes older versions while retaining the current and immediately previous versions.

Bucket policies (Option A) control access, not retention. S3 Object Lock (Option C) is designed for regulatory compliance and write-once-read-many (WORM) use cases and is not suitable for routine version cleanup. Suspending versioning (Option D) does not remove existing versions and increases application complexity.

Therefore, an S3 Lifecycle rule is the correct and AWS-recommended solution.