AWS Solutions Architect Cost-Optimized practice questions
7-day money-back guarantee — full refund within 7 days of purchase if you've completed under 20% of the questions. See pricing →
Certifications Tools Flashcards Career Paths Exam Guides Blog Pricing For Teams About

Language

✓ EnglishDeutschEspañolFrançaisPortuguês
Check readiness — free →

AWS Solutions Architect Design Cost-Optimized Architectures: 208 practice questions

AWS Solutions Architect 208 questions 12 shown free

12 of the 208 Design Cost-Optimized Architectures questions in the Certsqill AWS Solutions Architect bank, shown in full below. Each one carries an explanation for every option, not just the correct one — the wrong answers are where the marks go.

Preparing for AWS Solutions Architect? Take the free 5-min readiness check →

1. Store the records in S3 Intelligent-Tiering: Which solution best meets these requirements?

Medium
A solutions architect is reviewing five years of compliance records stored in Amazon S3. Access frequency changes unpredictably, some records must be readable immediately, and the records must remain resilient across Availability Zones. The company accepts a small monitoring charge and wants to reduce storage cost without managing manual restores. Which solution best meets these requirements?
  1. Store the records in S3 One Zone-IA because the records are accessed infrequently.
    One Zone-IA is not equivalent to multi-AZ storage, so it does not satisfy the stated resilience requirement for compliance records.
  2. Store the records in S3 Standard-IA and transition them after 30 days.
    Standard-IA provides immediate access, but its infrequent-access economics and retrieval or minimum-duration considerations are less suitable for unpredictable changes in access frequency.
  3. Store the records in S3 Intelligent-Tiering. ✓
    Intelligent-Tiering is designed for changing or unknown access patterns and can provide immediate access while automatically optimizing storage cost.
  4. Store the records in S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval and restore them before every read.
    Flexible Retrieval requires restoration before reading, violating the requirement for immediate access and adding operational handling.
The trap
When access patterns are unpredictable, prioritize a class that can adapt automatically; verify that archival classes do not impose a restore delay.

Intelligent-Tiering matches unpredictable access, immediate reads, and multi-AZ resilience without manual restore workflows.

2. Use gp3 volumes and provision capacity: Which solution best meets these requirements?

Medium
A transaction-processing application runs on EC2 and stores its boot volume and database files on EBS. Monitoring shows that capacity requirements are growing, while performance is usually moderate with brief periods requiring higher IOPS and throughput. The team must minimize storage cost without sacrificing the observed performance or changing the block-storage design. Which solution best meets these requirements?
  1. Move the database files to Regional EFS and retain only the operating system on EBS.
    EFS provides shared managed NFS file storage, but replacing the application’s EBS block-storage design with a file system does not meet the stated requirement to retain block storage.
  2. Use gp3 volumes and provision capacity, IOPS, and throughput independently according to measured requirements. ✓
    gp3 allows capacity, IOPS, and throughput to be adjusted independently, avoiding payment for unnecessary performance while accommodating growth.
  3. Use provisioned IOPS SSD volumes sized for peak performance throughout the year.
    Provisioned IOPS SSD is appropriate for demanding latency or IOPS requirements, but maintaining peak performance continuously increases cost when demand is usually moderate.
  4. Use HDD volumes for the boot volume and database files because they provide economical storage capacity.
    HDD options target large sequential workloads and are not suitable as boot volumes, so this design violates the application’s block-storage requirements.
The trap
When capacity and performance needs do not scale together, consider a volume type that lets them be provisioned independently.

gp3 separates capacity from IOPS and throughput, allowing the workload to scale storage without permanently provisioning peak performance.

3. Use an EFS One Zone file system in the workers’: Which solution provides shared file access while minimizing s

Hard
A company runs Linux batch workers in one Availability Zone. Workers concurrently mount the same 8-TiB file namespace through NFS. The files can be regenerated from source data, no worker runs in another Availability Zone, and the business accepts up to 24 hours of unavailability after an Availability Zone failure. Which solution provides shared file access while minimizing storage cost?
  1. Use an EFS One Zone file system in the workers’ Availability Zone. ✓
    This provides managed shared NFS access while matching the workload’s single-AZ placement and tolerance for losing recreatable data.
  2. Use a Regional EFS file system and mount it from every worker.
    Regional EFS is appropriate when resilience across Availability Zones is required, but that resilience is unnecessary for these stated requirements.
  3. Store the namespace in S3 Standard and have workers access objects through S3 APIs.
    S3 provides object access rather than the shared Linux NFS file semantics required by the workers.
  4. Create a gp3 EBS volume and attach it to all workers for shared file access.
    An ordinary EBS volume is persistent block storage, not a general cross-Availability-Zone shared filesystem for concurrent worker mounts.
The trap
Do not choose Regional EFS automatically; first determine whether the application requires resilience across Availability Zones or can recreate its data.

One Zone EFS matches single-AZ execution and recreatable data while retaining shared NFS access.

4. Use DataSync to transfer the NFS files to Amazon S3: Which solution best meets these requirements at the lowes

Medium
A solutions architect is reviewing an on-premises NFS file repository containing recreatable reports. The repository must be migrated using a managed transfer service. Reports are accessed only a few times monthly, must be immediately readable when requested, and must remain resilient to an Availability Zone failure. Which solution best meets these requirements at the lowest storage cost?
  1. Use DataSync to transfer the NFS files to S3 One Zone-IA.
    One Zone-IA can reduce storage cost, but it does not provide equivalent multi-AZ resilience and is unsuitable for this availability requirement.
  2. Use DataSync to transfer the NFS files to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval.
    Glacier Flexible Retrieval requires a restore before the reports can be read, violating the immediate-access requirement.
  3. Use DataSync to transfer the NFS files to Regional Amazon EFS.
    Regional EFS provides resilient shared file access, but its managed NFS model is unnecessary for an infrequently accessed archive and is not the cost-optimized choice.
  4. Use DataSync to transfer the NFS files to Amazon S3 Standard-IA. ✓
    S3 Standard-IA is designed for infrequently accessed data while retaining immediate access and multi-AZ storage characteristics.
The trap
For storage questions, first identify whether access must be immediate; then distinguish infrequent-access classes from archive classes that require restoration.

DataSync handles the NFS transfer, while S3 Standard-IA matches infrequent access, immediate retrieval, and resilient storage.

5. Create a Regional EFS file system and configure: Which change best satisfies the requirements while addressing

Medium
A company runs Linux workers in two Availability Zones. They need concurrent access to the same frequently accessed files, resilience across Availability Zones, and minimal storage administration. The existing gp3 EBS volume has suitable capacity, IOPS, and throughput, but is attached to one worker. Which change best satisfies the requirements while addressing the missing shared-storage prerequisite?
  1. Move the files to One Zone EFS and attach both workers through the existing network.
    One Zone EFS provides shared file access but does not satisfy the required cross-AZ resilience.
  2. Copy the files periodically between separate gp3 volumes with DataSync.
    DataSync can transfer data, but periodic transfers do not provide a permanently mounted, concurrently shared application filesystem.
  3. Store the files in S3 Standard and have both workers use S3 object APIs.
    S3 Standard offers immediate object access, but its object APIs do not provide the shared Linux file-system interface required by the workers.
  4. Create a Regional EFS file system and configure the workers’ mount and network permissions. ✓
    Regional EFS provides managed shared NFS access across Availability Zones and requires appropriate mount and network permissions.
The trap
When multiple Linux instances need the same files, distinguish shared file storage from independently attached block volumes and object storage.

Regional EFS supplies shared Linux file access across Availability Zones; the missing prerequisite is correctly configured mounting and network access.

6. Create EFS mount targets in each Availability Zone used: Which action should the architect take?

Medium
A solutions architect is reviewing a Linux application deployed across three Availability Zones. The application requires shared file access with immediate availability and minimal administration. A Regional EFS file system is configured, and security groups, IAM permissions, DNS, and client mount commands are correct. Mount attempts still fail from every instance because the file system has no mount targets. Which action should the architect take?
  1. Create an S3 VPC endpoint and change the application to access EFS data through S3 APIs.
    An S3 endpoint supports S3 traffic but does not provide NFS connectivity to an EFS file system.
  2. Run DataSync continuously and use its task endpoint as the application's mounted filesystem.
    DataSync transfers and validates data but does not itself provide a permanently mounted, low-latency application filesystem.
  3. Create EFS mount targets in each Availability Zone used by the application. ✓
    Mount targets provide the network attachment required for clients in the Availability Zones to mount EFS.
  4. Attach a single gp3 EBS volume to the instances and use it as the shared application filesystem.
    An ordinary EBS volume is persistent block storage and is not a cross-AZ shared filesystem.
The trap
Separate EFS availability configuration from client connectivity: verify mount targets and network access before replacing the storage service.

EFS clients require reachable mount targets; create them in each application Availability Zone while retaining the Regional file system.

7. Configure the EFS mount targets and network permissions so: Which change should the solutions architect make?

Medium
A company uses AWS DataSync to copy files from an on-premises NFS share to an Amazon EFS file system. The task, source location, destination location, and scheduling are configured, but executions fail when accessing the EFS destination. The company requires managed transfers with integrity validation and does not need a permanently mounted application filesystem. Which change should the solutions architect make?
  1. Change the destination to S3 Standard because DataSync cannot transfer NFS files directly to EFS.
    DataSync supports NFS-to-EFS transfers, so changing the destination addresses neither the failure nor the stated architecture.
  2. Configure the EFS mount targets and network permissions so the DataSync transfer can access the file system. ✓
    DataSync supports transfers from NFS to EFS, but the EFS destination still requires usable mount and network permissions.
  3. Replace DataSync with EBS gp3 and attach the volume to the on-premises NFS server for shared access.
    EBS is block storage for AWS compute and is not an ordinary cross-environment shared filesystem for an on-premises NFS server.
  4. Use S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval as the EFS destination to reduce transfer and storage administration.
    Glacier Flexible Retrieval is an archive storage class that requires restoration before reading; it does not provide the required EFS file-system destination.
The trap
When a DataSync task is already pointed at supported storage, first verify that the locations can actually be mounted and accessed.

DataSync can transfer NFS data to EFS, but EFS mount and network permissions must permit the destination access.

8. Use One Zone-IA for the analytics intermediates: Which change is most appropriate?

Medium
A company stores two S3 datasets. Reproducible analytics intermediates are accessed a few times yearly, while non-recreatable legal records are accessed rarely but must be readable immediately. The company wants to reduce storage cost while preserving each dataset's requirements. Which change is most appropriate?
  1. Use Glacier Flexible Retrieval for both datasets because both can tolerate rare access.
    Flexible Retrieval requires restoration before reading, which conflicts with the legal records' immediate-read requirement.
  2. Use One Zone-IA for both datasets because both have infrequent access.
    The legal records are non-recreatable and therefore should not rely on One Zone-IA's reduced availability characteristics.
  3. Use Intelligent-Tiering for both datasets because it guarantees immediate access at the lowest storage cost.
    Intelligent-Tiering can help changing access patterns, but it does not specifically provide the stated resilience optimization for recreatable data or guarantee the lowest cost for both workloads.
  4. Use One Zone-IA for the analytics intermediates and Glacier Instant Retrieval for the legal records. ✓
    One Zone-IA fits recreatable, infrequently accessed data. Glacier Instant Retrieval supports rare access without a restore delay.
The trap
For rare access, distinguish immediate retrieval classes from archive classes that require restoration; separately evaluate whether reduced resilience is acceptable.

Match the class to both access frequency and data resilience: One Zone-IA for recreatable data, Glacier Instant Retrieval for immediate rare access.

9. Use One Zone EFS for intermediate files and retain: Which design best meets these requirements?

Medium
A Linux processing fleet in three Availability Zones uses one Regional EFS file system. It stores both temporary intermediate files, which can be regenerated, and customer reports that must remain available after an Availability Zone failure. The company wants to reduce storage cost without changing the applications' shared NFS access or reducing report resilience. Which design best meets these requirements?
  1. Replace both EFS file systems with separate gp3 volumes attached to the processing instances.
    Ordinary EBS volumes provide persistent block storage but do not provide the required shared cross-instance NFS file access.
  2. Use One Zone EFS for intermediate files and retain Regional EFS for customer reports. ✓
    This places recreatable data on the lower-availability option while preserving Regional EFS for data requiring cross-AZ resilience.
  3. Move both data sets to One Zone EFS because the fleet currently runs in multiple Availability Zones.
    A multi-AZ client fleet does not make One Zone storage resilient to loss of its storage Availability Zone.
  4. Move both data sets to S3 Standard and change the applications to use object operations for every file access.
    S3 Standard offers immediate object access, but changing the applications abandons the required shared NFS interface and file semantics.
The trap
For storage optimization, classify each dataset by access interface, recovery tolerance, and availability requirement before choosing its storage placement.

Separate the workloads: use One Zone EFS for regenerable intermediate data and Regional EFS for reports needing cross-AZ resilience.

10. Use a DataSync task to S3 Standard-IA for the archive: Which change best meets both requirements?

Medium
A company uses DataSync to transfer 20 TB from on-premises NFS nightly. Eighteen TB is a quarterly-read archive requiring direct S3 reads, while 2 TB is active Linux content accessed continuously by instances in two Availability Zones. The company wants lower storage cost while preserving regional resilience for the active content. Which change best meets both requirements?
  1. Use a DataSync task to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval for the archive and Regional EFS for active content.
    Flexible Retrieval requires restoring objects before reading, violating the archive’s direct-read requirement.
  2. Use a DataSync task to S3 One Zone-IA for the archive and One Zone EFS for active content.
    Both choices reduce resilience; One Zone storage does not satisfy the active content’s cross-AZ resilience requirement.
  3. Use a DataSync task to S3 Standard-IA for the archive and a separate task to Regional EFS for active content. ✓
    Standard-IA supports infrequent direct access, and Regional EFS provides shared resilient file storage across Availability Zones.
  4. Use a DataSync task to S3 Standard-IA for the archive and retain active content on a single attached gp3 volume.
    A single EBS volume is not shared managed file storage for Linux instances in two Availability Zones.
The trap
Evaluate the destination storage characteristics separately for each dataset; DataSync itself does not convert block storage into shared file storage or remove restore delays.

Separate DataSync destinations match the two access patterns: S3 Standard-IA for infrequent direct reads and Regional EFS for resilient shared files.

11. Use S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval for the audit exports: A solutions architect is reviewing a storage configura

Medium
A solutions architect is reviewing a storage configuration table for an application’s audit exports:

| Attribute | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Access pattern | A few times per year, unpredictable |
| Retrieval latency | Immediate access when requested |
| Retention | Several years |
| Data recreation | Not possible |

Which S3 storage class best meets the requirements while reducing storage cost compared with S3 Standard?
  1. Use S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval for the audit exports. ✓
    Glacier Instant Retrieval is designed for rarely accessed archival data that still requires immediate retrieval, making it the best fit for these constraints.
  2. Use S3 Standard-IA for the audit exports.
    Standard-IA provides immediate access and supports infrequent access, but Glacier Instant Retrieval is better aligned with long-lived, rarely accessed data where lower storage cost is prioritized.
  3. Use S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval for the audit exports.
    Flexible Retrieval is intended for archival data that can tolerate a restore step, which conflicts with the immediate-access requirement.
  4. Use S3 Glacier Deep Archive for the audit exports.
    Deep Archive is appropriate when retrieval can wait for restoration; it does not satisfy the requirement to read the exports immediately when requested.
The trap
Do not select an archival class solely by storage price; first determine whether retrieval requires restoration.

Glacier Instant Retrieval combines infrequent-access economics with immediate object access.

12. Replace the database io2 volume with gp3 and provision: Which change best meets these requirements?

Medium
A company runs a Linux application on one EC2 instance. The workload requires a boot volume and a 500-GiB database volume. Monitoring shows the database averages 3,000 IOPS and 125 MiB/s, with occasional short bursts, while the current io2 volume is substantially overprovisioned. The architect must reduce storage cost without changing the attachment model or sacrificing the observed performance. Which change best meets these requirements?
  1. Replace the database io2 volume with gp2 and increase capacity until its automatically assigned IOPS meets the peak requirement.
    gp2 performance is tied to volume capacity, so meeting a burst requirement by enlarging the volume can add unnecessary storage cost and does not provide the same independent tuning.
  2. Replace both volumes with st1 and rely on the database workload’s bursts to provide the required performance.
    st1 is intended for large sequential workloads and is not suitable for the boot volume; it is also not the appropriate choice for a latency-sensitive database workload.
  3. Keep io2 for the database and attach the same volume to instances in two Availability Zones for shared access.
    Ordinary EBS volumes are not cross-AZ shared filesystems, and retaining the overprovisioned volume does not achieve the requested cost reduction.
  4. Replace the database io2 volume with gp3 and provision capacity, IOPS, and throughput independently near the measured requirements. ✓
    gp3 allows capacity, IOPS, and throughput to be provisioned independently, so the database can retain appropriate performance without paying for excessive provisioned performance.
The trap
When performance and capacity do not scale together, consider whether gp3 can right-size each independently before selecting a more specialized volume.

gp3 separates storage capacity from IOPS and throughput, enabling right-sized performance at lower cost than the overprovisioned io2 volume.

196 more Design Cost-Optimized Architectures questions

The remaining 196 questions in this domain are part of the full AWS Solutions Architect bank — 1061 questions, every option explained. Start with the free five-minute check and see your score per domain.

Test your AWS Solutions Architect readiness — free

Other AWS Solutions Architect domains

Part of the Certsqill AWS Solutions Architect question bank · Design Cost-Optimized Architectures · Every answer, right and wrong, comes with its own explanation.